Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]
Options
Comments
-
If you've learned from them how do you know they're so good?
Eventually all cockups have to be paid for and the person responsible is the Head buck, the minister, he is accountable.
We elect a Govt to be accountable, we have no say pretty much on the civil servants, and the Govt and its ministers are entitled to be held accountable and replaced if we don't think they're giving us value for our money.
FG on this one don't look too good.
That's it really. The next government will likely be Fianna Fail or Fine Gael heavy, (or both). It's no progress to switch twiddle dum for tweedle dee. The best we can push for is expecting better and pushing for better off of what we have. No minister should be in the dark about how multi millions of tax payer money was spent in his own department. The impartial or independent people looking after the acceptance and procurement of tenders should be educated. It's a bit much to pass any of this off as, 'learn as you go'.
Hanging Harris will only have some other ill qualified recipient of the 'poisoned chalice' wheeled in. We should strive for better from what we are stuck with and hope they have common or garden knowledge of business practices.0 -
Do you think the it was the wrong decision to choose BAM? Do you think the minister should've intervened and overruled the board? What action would you like to have seen the minister take?
I'm all for Government and it's ministers being held accountable. But first you're going to need to clarify what you want them to be held accountable for. Exactly which bit of the procurement or the cost appreciation.
Millions of tax payer euros spent by their department? Not knowing why or by whom? Making sure their staff have a common or garden knowledge of budgets, business contracts, procurement?
What do you think ministers should be held accountable for exactly?0 -
If you've learned from them how do you know they're so good?
.
I would guess that he read the links I provided, not just the posts. My posts aren't that informative but I always try to provide links to back them up. Too often, many posts in this forum are more like streams of conscience.Eventually all cockups have to be paid for and the person responsible is the Head buck, the minister, he is accountable.
We elect a Govt to be accountable, we have no say pretty much on the civil servants, and the Govt and its ministers are entitled to be held accountable and replaced if we don't think they're giving us value for our money.
FG on this one don't look too good.
This is an interesting question. It is very easy to say that the Minister is accountable for everything. However, have a look at this story:
https://www.thejournal.ie/civil-servant-court-jail-corruption-3818315-Jan2018/
A civil servant working in the Department of Social Protection sold the personal details of hundreds of people. Should the Minister for Social Protection resign? After all, it happened under Regina Doherty's watch. I think that it would be absurd to suggest that she resign over this purely on the basis that the buck stops with her.
On the other hand, the policy decision to guarantee the banks was the most foolish political decision made by the country in generations, and we rightly threw that FF/Green government out the door in the following election.
The thing is, it isn't that easy to determine where the blame lies between those two different positions. Mostly it comes down to political viewpoints, which is why we have the same posters calling for Minister Naughton to be fired for interfering in the tender process and Minister Harris to be fired for not interfering in the tender process. It is not just posters, we have the same idiotic TDs ranting and raving on the opposition benches about the two situations. So how should we judge the two situations?
An appropriate starting place is the legislation governing how the government acts. While the Constitution is relatively clear on the difference between the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, the balance of responsibility between various parts of the executive is not so clear. There is some legislation to guide us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministers_and_Secretaries_Acts
These Acts date back to 1924, albeit they have been amended quite a few times. The Public Service Management Act is also relevant. See here Section 4:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/27/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4
There is an argument that the responsibility in the current situation lies with the Secretary General of the Department of Health, rather than the Minister.
This is not a problem unique to the public service. In the private sector, how do shareholders decide whether the Board of a company should be fired or the CEO? Governance and accountability are important, but the biggest dangers are
(1) in not ensuring that the accountability is clearly laid out from the start (we don't as the policy and the Acts are not clear) and
(2) ascribing responsibility to the right person/body (we don't as politics take over and idiots start shouting "off with Leo's head" or Eoghan or a Simon, rather than focus on where responsibility should lie).
Again, this is not unique to Ireland. Most democracies struggle with accountability when things go wrong. Take our nearest neighbours in the North. Did the allegations (unproven at the time) against Arlene Foster merit collapsing the whole Assembly when the North was facing its biggest challenge in a century? I don't think so, but Sinn Fein did. Politics enters it and so we see posters playing politics rather than accountability in the face of the latest on the hospital.0 -
Do you think the it was the wrong decision to choose BAM? Do you think the minister should've intervened and overruled the board? What action would you like to have seen the minister take?
I'm all for Government and it's ministers being held accountable. But first you're going to need to clarify what you want them to be held accountable for. Exactly which bit of the procurement or the cost appreciation.
I'm not quite sure what we can't hold them accountable for tbh.
What do we elect them for in the first place?
What's being suggested here is that Govt are just signaturies of civil servant processes, and quite frankly that frightens me more than anything else.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Millions of tax payer euros spent by their department? Not knowing why or by whom? Making sure their staff have a common or garden knowledge of budgets, business contracts, procurement?
What do you think ministers should be held accountable for exactly?
Essentially, if we are running a country to the highest of standards, Ministers should be responsible for determining policy, civil and public servants should be responsible for implementing policy.
It is not a clear divide, and there are many overlapping and also grey areas between determining and implementing policy. In Ireland, we tend to focus on Ministers being responsible for implementation of policy. It is a reflection of a lack of maturity in political debate.0 -
Advertisement
-
I would guess that he read the links I provided, not just the posts. My posts aren't that informative but I always try to provide links to back them up. Too often, many posts in this forum are more like streams of conscience.
This is an interesting question. It is very easy to say that the Minister is accountable for everything. However, have a look at this story:
https://www.thejournal.ie/civil-servant-court-jail-corruption-3818315-Jan2018/
A civil servant working in the Department of Social Protection sold the personal details of hundreds of people. Should the Minister for Social Protection resign? After all, it happened under Regina Doherty's watch. I think that it would be absurd to suggest that she resign over this purely on the basis that the buck stops with her.
On the other hand, the policy decision to guarantee the banks was the most foolish political decision made by the country in generations, and we rightly threw that FF/Green government out the door in the following election.
The thing is, it isn't that easy to determine where the blame lies between those two different positions. Mostly it comes down to political viewpoints, which is why we have the same posters calling for Minister Naughton to be fired for interfering in the tender process and Minister Harris to be fired for not interfering in the tender process. It is not just posters, we have the same idiotic TDs ranting and raving on the opposition benches about the two situations. So how should we judge the two situations?
An appropriate starting place is the legislation governing how the government acts. While the Constitution is relatively clear on the difference between the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, the balance of responsibility between various parts of the executive is not so clear. There is some legislation to guide us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministers_and_Secretaries_Acts
These Acts date back to 1924, albeit they have been amended quite a few times. The Public Service Management Act is also relevant. See here Section 4:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/27/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4
There is an argument that the responsibility in the current situation lies with the Secretary General of the Department of Health, rather than the Minister.
This is not a problem unique to the public service. In the private sector, how do shareholders decide whether the Board of a company should be fired or the CEO? Governance and accountability are important, but the biggest dangers are
(1) in not ensuring that the accountability is clearly laid out from the start (we don't as the policy and the Acts are not clear) and
(2) ascribing responsibility to the right person/body (we don't as politics take over and idiots start shouting "off with Leo's head" or Eoghan or a Simon, rather than focus on where responsibility should lie).
Again, this is not unique to Ireland. Most democracies struggle with accountability when things go wrong. Take our nearest neighbours in the North. Did the allegations (unproven at the time) against Arlene Foster merit collapsing the whole Assembly when the North was facing its biggest challenge in a century? I don't think so, but Sinn Fein did. Politics enters it and so we see posters playing politics rather than accountability in the face of the latest on the hospital.
Well if its a Cs that's at fault, wheel him/her out there and let's see who it is.
There is a certain ridiculousness in this thread lads. The people elected are responsible, responsible, responsible. Either that or irresponsible, either way they arent looking very good.0 -
I'm not quite sure what we can't hold them accountable for tbh.
What do we elect them for in the first place?
What's being suggested here is that Govt are just signaturies of civil servant processes, and quite frankly that frightens me more than anything else.
The decision to build a National Children's Hospital (rather than multiple regional ones) is a policy decision which is the responsibility of the Minister.
The decision to build a National Children's Hospital in James is a grey area (policy versus implementation of the earlier policy decision?) but I would call that as a policy decision that is the responsibility of the Minister (and also a wrong policy decision by the way, not necessarily a resigning issue, but a wrong policy decision).
However, managing the building of the National Children's Hospital is not a policy decision, but an implementation one. That isn't the Minister's responsibility, but the civil servants. As I have pointed out already, when you look at the Board charged with implementing the decision, it is seriously concerning that the expertise involved got it wrong.0 -
Well if its a Cs that's at fault, wheel him/her out there and let's see who it is.
There is a certain ridiculousness in this thread lads. The people elected are responsible, responsible, responsible. Either that or irresponsible, either way they arent looking very good.
The main problem is the strawman argument of more ministerial intervention regarding the tendering process. Nobody suggested that but there are plenty of rebuttals.
This takes away from my actual query, is Pascal Donohue inferring the lowest bidder got precedence and why does he seem to think such practise is now subject to change, 'learn from our mistakes' as it were, when it should never have been the practice of any competent agency or department in the first place? Are we dealing with complete novices here? If so, who hired them to undertake such a task?
The discussion on ministerial responsibility is an interesting aside. On that I'd suggest the buck stops with the minister. That's the elected people's representative in all of this. Hardly baying for blood TBH because it's not like there's better waiting in the wings, but the fear of being held to some form of account may lead to better practise within ministerial departments. Ministers can call for their department staff to have basic education and a smattering of knowledge within the area they are appointed I'd imagine.
The whole affair simply isn't good enough and a 'sorry' coupled with a shrug of the shoulders won't cut it.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »The main problem is the strawman argument of more ministerial intervention regarding the tendering process. Nobody suggested that but there are plenty of rebuttals.
This takes away from my actual query, is Pascal Donohue inferring the lowest bidder got precedence and why does he seem to think such practise is now subject to change, 'learn from our mistakes' as it were, when it should never have been the practice of any competent agency or department in the first place? Are we dealing with complete novices here? If so, who hired them to undertake such a task?
The discussion on ministerial responsibility is an interesting aside. On that I'd suggest the buck stops with the minister. That's the elected people's representative in all of this. Hardly baying for blood TBH because it's not like there's better waiting in the wings, but the fear of being held to some form of account may lead to better practise within ministerial departments. Ministers can call for their department staff to have basic education and a smattering of knowledge within the area they are appointed I'd imagine.
The whole affair simply isn't good enough and a 'sorry' coupled with a shrug of the shoulders won't cut it.
Even when I do the research for people, it seems they don't bother reading it. Here is a link I posted earlier which gives the names and bios of the people on the board:
http://www.newchildrenshospital.ie/the-project/national-paediatric-hospital-development-board/
When you read the list and the bios, you have to wonder how they managed to mess this up. If the mess was avoidable, then they surely should have been able to avoid it. The PWC Report cannot come quick enough.
Similarly, I have done all of the research on the differential responsibilities of Ministers and civil servants for you.0 -
Even when I do the research for people, it seems they don't bother reading it. Here is a link I posted earlier which gives the names and bios of the people on the board:
http://www.newchildrenshospital.ie/the-project/national-paediatric-hospital-development-board/
When you read the list and the bios, you have to wonder how they managed to mess this up. If the mess was avoidable, then they surely should have been able to avoid it. The PWC Report cannot come quick enough.
Similarly, I have done all of the research on the differential responsibilities of Ministers and civil servants for you.
Condensation aside, your links on the tendering process were not required regarding the content of my posts but rather the strawman you presented regarding ministerial involvement in the process and the idea, nobody suggested, that they should have more.
Regarding the bios. Mine was a more rhetorical question. However, agreed, something is not right with this. Again, is Pascal suggesting they went with the lowest quote? If so, you and I could have sat on the board. To be fair I would have done a better job. Why are our government ministers allowing such practices, to be fair they seem to be claiming they just became aware of. Is nobody in elected authority steering the ship here? Magic money tree for contracts?0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »Condensation aside, your links on the tendering process were not required regarding the content of my posts but rather the strawman you presented regarding ministerial involvement in the process and the idea, nobody suggested, that they should have more.
Regarding the bios. Mine was a more rhetorical question. However, agreed, something is not right with this. Again, is Pascal suggesting they went with the lowest quote? If so, you and I could have sat on the board. To be fair I would have done a better job. Why are our government ministers allowing such practices, to be fair they seem to be claiming they just became aware of. Is nobody in elected authority steering the ship here? Magic money tree for contracts?
The key question for me then, is if the Minister is not involved (and you seem to agree) and should not be involved (which you also seem to agree) and has appointed a competent board (and I see nobody disagreeing), then why should the Minister be held responsible?
He has done his bit, stayed out of the procurement process as required, but appointed competent people to do the job. If it doesn't work, the fault is likely to be with the board, rather than the Minister. Given the chairman of the Board resigned, it is likely that he agrees.
You cannot have the Minister setting the terms of the procurement process, because that allows for corrupt influence, so can you explain what exactly Minister Harris should have done differently?0 -
The key question for me then, is if the Minister is not involved (and you seem to agree) and should not be involved (which you also seem to agree) and has appointed a competent board (and I see nobody disagreeing), then why should the Minister be held responsible?
He has done his bit, stayed out of the procurement process as required, but appointed competent people to do the job. If it doesn't work, the fault is likely to be with the board, rather than the Minister. Given the chairman of the Board resigned, it is likely that he agrees.
You cannot have the Minister setting the terms of the procurement process, because that allows for corrupt influence, so can you explain what exactly Minister Harris should have done differently?
Because the Minister is responsible for the actions of their department IMO.
You are making this mostly about ministerial responsibility. I am not.
The ultimate responsibility lies with the Ministers otherwise they are surplus to requirement. Certainly not qualified in many cases and not responsible for any actions in their department, so why bother with them at all?
Nobody has thus far laid blame at any ministers feet for the choices carried out by this board or those made in the process. You have inferred it has been a number of times.
Now you return to rebutting the argument nobody made.
There's a number of elements to this.
The board, if it was them, made a poor series of choices if they are responsible for this. Whom ever is responsible should be held to account.
Donohue seems to be inferring they went with the lowest quote.
A portion of accountability must lay with the elected official at the head of the department. This does not mean they should have a more hands on part in the process, it simply means they are over all, responsible for their department making colossal screw ups to the tax payers cost.
The real issues here are who, why and accountability for those actions. I couldn't care less what farce plays out in the FF/FG government. It's more often insulting dramatics with no substance IMO.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Because the Minister is responsiblefor the actions of their department IMO.
You are making this mostly about ministerial responsibility. I am not.
The ultimate responsibility lies with the Ministers otherwise they are surplus to requirement. Certainly not qualified in many cases and not responsible for any actions in their department, so why bother with them at all?
Nobody has thus far laid blame at any ministers feet for the choices carried out by this board or those made in the process. You have inferred it has been a number of times.
Now you return to rebutting the argument nobody made.
There's a number of elements to this.
The board, if it was them, made a poor series of choices if they are responsible for this. Whom ever is responsible should be held to account.
Donohue seems to be inferring they went with the lowest quote.
A portion of accountability must lay with the elected official at the head of the department. This does not mean they should have a more hands on part in the process, it simply means they are over all, responsible for their department making colossal screw ups to the tax payers cost.
The real issues here are who, why and accountability for those actions. I couldn't care less what farce plays out in the FF/FG government. It's more often insulting dramatics with no substance IMO.
Again, I have pointed already on this thread to the civil servant selling off hundreds of people's personal information. If a Minister is responsible for the actions of her Department in your opinion, as you have stated, then you should be calling for Regina Doherty to resign over the issue.
Once you accept that there are some things that a civil servant does that a Minister does not have to resign for, you need to set criteria for what is and isn't a Minister's responsibility. I have provided the relevant legislative background for that discussion, but instead of setting general principles, you are avoiding the discussion as to where a Minister's responsibility starts and ends.
I have set out a clear set of tests as to where the Minister's responsibility lies. I have even pointed to where I believe he was responsible for a bad policy decision. But I have also set out clear reasons why he isn't responsible for the particular issue of the cost overrun. I am happy to engage with high level discussion of those points, but a meaningless point that a Minister is responsible just because he is the Minister isn't really a point worth debating.
By the way, nobody is arguing that there should not be accountability for the decision. It is you who said the buck stopped with the Minister, without providing any single piece of supporting legislation or legal basis as to why that is so.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »If so, you and I could have sat on the board. To be fair I would have done a better job.
This is classic populist nonsense in fairness.
Some random nobody on boards.ie can do a better job than...
A Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health in University College Cork
A Chief Executive of St. James’s Hospital
A Director of Finance of the HSE/Interim Director of Acute Services
A Deputy CEO of the Beacon Hospital
An Executive Director for Customer Solutions for the ESB
The Government’s Chief Procurement Officer and head of the Office of Government Procurement
A Principal Planning Adviser in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government
A Fellow of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (FRIAI) and deputy Chairperson at An Bord Pleanála
A former chairman of the European Health Property Network, Under-Secretary at the DHSSPS(NI) and Chief Estates Officer for the Health Estates Investment Group (HEIG)
A founding Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Vice Chair of the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board and Director of the Land Development Agency
I thought Ireland was better than Trump's America where a reality TV host sold the lie that he could do a better job than anyone else in running the country, but now in Ireland, we have the idea that randomers can do a better job than those listed above.0 -
Tbh, if some randomer had done this the world and his mother would be on his back saying how stupid he was and how, crazy it was to give him the job, the minister should be sacked.
Harris was lucky last night, brexit saved him, the vast majority of our elected reps have no confidence in him.0 -
We see a lot of people suggesting privatisation is the way to go in many areas, including health. Here we have a private contractor poorly regulated given what amounts to a blank cheque and we are to accept that no elected official holds any responsibility. The contractor did right by them so I doubt any of their board members are upset by this. So who's looking out for the tax payer? It's not the contractors job.
If we don't hold people to account, what's the incentive for improving or not repeated the same errors?
In the least the minister is responsible for the actions and costs related to their department. If I was Simon or Pascal I'd be furious and taking names right about now. I would hope we see any future ventures brought up to the level of professionalism one would expect from a wedding planner.0 -
The health service needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. There has been a revolving door of ministers in and out over the last 10 to 15 years and nothing has changed so what’s the point in booting out Harris and replacing him with someone else who’ll be there for 2 - 3 years and then gone again leaving the broken system in the same state.
So in the interests of political stability I think he might as well stay until after brexit at least. Changing him for someone else is just putting a new lick of paint on a house with crumbling foundations.0 -
The health service needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. There has been a revolving door of ministers in and out over the last 10 to 15 years and nothing has changed so what’s the point in booting out Harris and replacing him with someone else who’ll be there for 2 - 3 years and then gone again leaving the broken system in the same state.
So in the interests of political stability I think he might as well stay until after brexit at least. Changing him for someone else is just putting a new lick of paint on a house with crumbling foundations.
I agree up until the 'stability' line. I don't want a number of worsening crises being normalised by the 'stability' con perpetrated by the FF/FG government. Case in point, the Children's hospital over run. FF abstaining from a vote, for 'stability'.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »We see a lot of people suggesting privatisation is the way to go in many areas, including health. Here we have a private contractor poorly regulated given what amounts to a blank cheque and we are to accept that no elected official holds any responsibility. The contractor did right by them so I doubt any of their board members are upset by this. So who's looking out for the tax payer? It's not the contractors job.
If we don't hold people to account, what's the incentive for improving or not repeated the same errors?
In the least the minister is responsible for the actions and costs related to their department. If I was Simon or Pascal I'd be furious and taking names right about now. I would hope we see any future ventures brought up to the level of professionalism one would expect from a wedding planner.
Are you now suggesting it is the private sector's fault? That the mess-up by a public sector board makes the argument against privatisation?
If anything, the current debacle proves that the private sector could do it better. Have a read of this.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consortium-asks-to-build-children-s-hospital-1.1289826
Noel Smyth proposed in 2006 to build a children's hospital on a Newlands Cross site. Do you think we would still be waiting for one if he had been given the go-ahead?
https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/tycoon-repeats-his-offer-to-build-a-childrens-hospital-26276460.html
Even if he got elements of it wrong, correcting those would cost a hell of a lot less than the current proposal.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I agree up until the 'stability' line. I don't want a number of worsening crises being normalised by the 'stability' con perpetrated by the FF/FG government. Case in point, the Children's hospital over run. FF abstaining from a vote, for 'stability'.
Stability in light of brexit, if it wasn’t for brexit he’d be gone.0 -
Advertisement
-
Stability in light of brexit, if it wasn’t for brexit he’d be gone.
The need for stability over Brexit didn't save Frances Fitzgerald or Denis Naughten over the last 14-15 months! Removing a minister does not necessarily cause an election. Micheal Martin is just a bit like Jeremy Corbyn, he doesn't want one until after the **** hits the fan0 -
The need for stability over Brexit didn't save Frances Fitzgerald or Denis Naughten over the last 14-15 months! Removing a minister does not necessarily cause an election. Micheal Martin is just a bit like Jeremy Corbyn, he doesn't want one until after the **** hits the fan
True that.
Wasn't Frances got rid of to avoid one.0 -
-
The need for stability over Brexit didn't save Frances Fitzgerald or Denis Naughten over the last 14-15 months! Removing a minister does not necessarily cause an election. Micheal Martin is just a bit like Jeremy Corbyn, he doesn't want one until after the **** hits the fan
Brexit is supposed to happen at the end of next month and there is no plan, a hard brexit now looks like a real possibility and we need a functioning government and a minimum amout of drama on our side of the channel. That was not the case 14 - 15 months ago. I would say these are extraordinary times. So for now id be in favour of holding our government together until after March 29th. And anyway like I said in my earlier post, what difference will a new health minister make?0 -
Brexit is supposed to happen at the end of next month and there is no plan, a hard brexit now looks like a real possibility and we need a functioning government and a minimum amout of drama on our side of the channel. That was not the case 14 - 15 months ago. I would say these are extraordinary times. So for now id be in favour of holding our government together until after March 29th. And anyway like I said in my earlier post, what difference will a new health minister make?
Actually, Michael Martin was saying it was the case - and he's been doing so a lot longer than that! And Naughten only went less than 4 months ago!0 -
Actually, Michael Martin was saying it was the case - and he's been doing so a lot longer than that! And Naughten only went less than 4 months ago!
I get your point and I wouldn't like to see that sort of thing happenning either. But as it stands I think they have grounds. Id support him staying in the position until march 29th and then we can see where we are. Basically I just think that we can't really have a general election with brexit this close. I don't see what we gain by bringing down the government now instead of in 6 weeks time or so when hopefully we'll be in a more certain position in relation to brexit. I don't think Fianna Fail will allow the government to last much longer after that anyway. This absolute cluster fúck with the childrens hospital is the final nail in the coffin of this government I think.0 -
I get your point and I wouldn't like to see that sort of thing happenning either. But as it stands I think they have grounds. Id support him staying in the position until march 29th and then we can see where we are. Basically I just think that we can't really have a general election with brexit this close. I don't see what we gain by bringing down the government now instead of in 6 weeks time or so when hopefully we'll be in a more certain position in relation to brexit. I don't think Fianna Fail will allow the government to last much longer after that anyway. This absolute cluster fúck with the childrens hospital is the final nail in the coffin of this government I think.
Except the confidence & supply agreement doesn't lapse on March 29th. They have agreed to continue it until 2020. To my original point, MicheMartin is afraid of a general election....if he doesn't come out on the other side of one as Taoiseach, (which he more than likely wouldn't if an election was called today), his number is up as FF leader. And he's hoping that the landscape will have changes over the next 12 months. Which could easily happen if there's a hard Brexit and a hard border,those who support the Governments position today will turn on them fairly fast....not withstanding the fact that FG really chose the wrong leader in their party leadership contest and Simon Coveney should have won it in my view.0 -
FF were just stirring the pot re the agreement to look like they've a political agenda outside of gaining power.
I thought Simon had it in the bag re leadership.
We are going to have some form of FF/FG partnership after the next election. We can only hope they get their ducks in a row and place people in positions that they might have an interest in or a knowledge of. A basic night course for a cert in Bis-Org would be great. Proper interdepartmental communication, like functioning companies have and of course accountability so they have incentive not to shrug off such things.0 -
Except the confidence & supply agreement doesn't lapse on March 29th. They have agreed to continue it until 2020. To my original point, MicheMartin is afraid of a general election....if he doesn't come out on the other side of one as Taoiseach, (which he more than likely wouldn't if an election was called today), his number is up as FF leader. And he's hoping that the landscape will have changes over the next 12 months. Which could easily happen if there's a hard Brexit and a hard border,those who support the Governments position today will turn on them fairly fast....not withstanding the fact that FG really chose the wrong leader in their party leadership contest and Simon Coveney should have won it in my view.
Regardless of what Micheal Martin wants it’s pretty obvious in recent interviews with Stephen Donelly and other senior FF members that they have no intention of continuing the C&S agreement until next year and if it wasn’t for brexit they would have ended it already. I think there’ll be a GE this year, at least I hope so, it’s time. I just wish there was a party I actually was enthusiastic about voting for....0 -
Advertisement
-
Regardless of what Micheal Martin wants it’s pretty obvious in recent interviews with Stephen Donelly and other senior FF members that they have no intention of continuing the C&S agreement until next year and if it wasn’t for brexit they would have ended it already. I think there’ll be a GE this year, at least I hope so, it’s time. I just wish there was a party I actually was enthusiastic about voting for....
What happened to Casey starting a new party or going in with renua etc. there is an open goal for a new non bull**** party to challenge the establishment. 20-25% of the vote there for the taking if they do it right... As is, yes, we can swap one set of morons with another to be the senior party! I’m so inspired....
Fg had their chance. Proved beyond doubt their incompetence and populism is right up there with ff... a “new politics “etc, in hindsight, it’s comedy ...0
Advertisement