# The State is getting bigger



## Purple (28 Sep 2022)

The State is getting bigger. They are controlling more and more of the national income.
Is that a good thing?


----------



## noproblem (28 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> The State is getting bigger. They are controlling more and more of the national income.
> Is that a good thing?


It is for the workers concerned. Then again, any public servants will have to pass your analysis which can't be too good as we well know your point of view on the PS.


----------



## joe sod (28 Sep 2022)

We all see the consequences of an all powerful state, the Soviet Union being the prime example.  Shortages of food and consumer goods , too much focus on military and arms and stupid wars. China now with its zero covid policy when it has been abandoned by everyone else. An all powerful state cannot admit mistakes whereas private businesses cannot afford this luxury therefore they are much better at learning and changing things to the best methods. 

Of course we are far from this extreme in Ireland now but we need to be very wary of giving too much power to central government and bureaucracies. They haven't a clue how to produce anything efficiently.  Look at the HSE we hardly need more of these state organisations


----------



## Peanuts20 (28 Sep 2022)

Is it really getting bigger or has it just got into the practise of outsourcing? Social housing, for example, has largely been outsourced to the private sector, so has chunks of Public Transport as 2 examples. Likewise with care for the elderly.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2022)

Peanuts20 said:


> Is it really getting bigger or has it just got into the practise of outsourcing? Social housing, for example, has largely been outsourced to the private sector, so has chunks of Public Transport as 2 examples. Likewise with care for the elderly.


No, it's getting bigger. The State is taking and then spending more and more of the Nations wealth. I'd have no real problem with that if they were any good at it but they aren't. They are grossly inefficient and so as they take more they waste more. Ultimately that will hurt everyone.


----------



## DazedInPontoon (28 Sep 2022)

Do state's ever get smaller? As I understand it the pattern is generally states grow until they fail.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2022)

DazedInPontoon said:


> Do state's ever get smaller? As I understand it the pattern is generally states grow until they fail.


Yep, so why rush it?


----------



## DazedInPontoon (28 Sep 2022)

I'm not arguing with you, I would generally like to see the state being as small as possible. But I expect it to keep growing.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2022)

DazedInPontoon said:


> I'm not arguing with you, I would generally like to see the state being as small as possible. But I expect it to keep growing.


I agree. The State takes your money and then gives it back to you less their costs. Child Benefit is a great example. They take €140 plus €X from you in taxes, €X being their costs. They keep €X and give you back the rest. I'd rather they didn't take it in the first place.


----------



## galway_blow_in (28 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> The State is getting bigger. They are controlling more and more of the national income.
> Is that a good thing?


Well it’s unquestionably what the population wants , population has swung considerably to the left this past decade and we were always a centre left country economically speaking anyway

Irish people love big government, from wealthy farmer’s to market stall operators


----------



## Groucho (28 Sep 2022)

joe sod said:


> We all see the consequences of an all powerful state, the Soviet Union being the prime example.  Shortages of food and consumer goods , too much focus on military and arms and stupid wars. China now with its zero covid policy when it has been abandoned by everyone else. An all powerful state cannot admit mistakes whereas private businesses cannot afford this luxury therefore they are much better at learning and changing things to the best methods.
> 
> Of course we are far from this extreme in Ireland now but we need to be very wary of giving too much power to central government and bureaucracies. They haven't a clue how to produce anything efficiently.  Look at the HSE we hardly need more of these state organisations



What wrong with the HSE?    It's doing fine, all thing considered.


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> What wrong with the HSE?    It's doing fine, all thing considered.


It's one of the best funded healthcare systems in the world but there are chronic waiting lists and constant backlogs in A&E Departments. 
It's doing appallingly, all things considered.


----------



## RichInSpirit (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> The State is getting bigger. They are controlling more and more of the national income.
> Is that a good thing?


Interesting question Purple.
One thing I've noticed for a good few years now is this "Government of Ireland" mantra coming from the top. And it is bigger than just a political party or group of political parties. It is whole government/civil service apparatus.
In my opinion of course.


----------



## joe sod (29 Sep 2022)

Well it hasn't got bigger in the areas it should have been getting bigger in such as building regulations.  The local governments are still not inspecting buildings during construction even after the enormous cost of the pyrite and mica scandals. They want to throw the blame for this onto the whole construction industry even though it was a few rogue operators that were not rooted out by the state inspection apparatus . This would not have happened in UK for example as they have a robust inspection regime.


----------



## tallpaul (29 Sep 2022)

Because leaving anything important to the private sector is such a success and in the interest of the citizen...






						Bank of Ireland - Bank of Ireland fined €100,520,000 for tracker scandal
					

I attach the Central Bank statement   ENFORCEMENT ACTION  Central Bank of Ireland and The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland  The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland reprimanded and fined €100,520,000 by the Central Bank of Ireland for regulatory breaches affecting tracker...



					www.askaboutmoney.com


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

joe sod said:


> Well it hasn't got bigger in the areas it should have been getting bigger in such as building regulations.


Is the solution to get bigger or get better? Which is better, bigger bucket with holes in it or the same smaller bucket with fewer or no holes in it?
I'd rather see an emphasis on the State functioning better rather than the State getting bigger.


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

tallpaul said:


> Because leaving anything important to the private sector is such a success and in the interest of the citizen...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was that a failure by the State to apply existing regulations properly?
Was is a failure of the State to construct legislation correctly?
Was it a failure of the Banks?
Was it a combination of all three?

There was a regulatory structure in place. It was inadequate and the people charged with overseeing it and making it work were inept. More bad regulation is not the solution to existing bad regulation.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Is the solution to get bigger or get better? Which is better, bigger bucket with holes in it or the same smaller bucket with fewer or no holes in it?
> I'd rather see an emphasis on the State functioning better rather than the State getting bigger.


Agreed. The building sector is already grossly over-regulated and this has been a major factor in the building cost inflation we have experienced since circa 2010.


----------



## tallpaul (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Was that a failure by the State to apply existing regulations properly?
> Was is a failure of the State to construct legislation correctly?
> Was it a failure of the Banks?
> Was it a combination of all three?
> ...


Obviously. However there is an indisputable need for the State and the State's services. It is 'getting bigger' partly because the private sector has clearly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to regulate itself.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Sep 2022)

tallpaul said:


> Obviously. However there is an indisputable need for the State and the State's services. It is 'getting bigger' partly because the private sector has clearly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to regulate itself.


You'll have to explain how the biggest increases in state spending are related to regulation.
Because they're not.

Can the state regulate its own activities?

An Garda Siochana has no private sector competitor, and has been racked by scandal after scandal and abuse of power.


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

tallpaul said:


> Obviously. However there is an indisputable need for the State and the State's services.


Sure, the problem is that the State isn't very good at delivering those services. It is the failure of the State and the State's employees to be competent that has seen the drift to extremist and populist politics in this country and others.


tallpaul said:


> It is 'getting bigger' partly because the private sector has clearly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to regulate itself.


Nobody can ever be trusted to regulate themselves. That's why we have laws and police and courts. That's why some sectors have specific regulatory bodies which are constituted be law. You can call them professions if you have a hankering for the Anglo-ascendency class world of yesteryear but it's just the State overseeing and regulating the actions of people who work in specific jobs. 
If people could be trusted to regulate themselves there'd be no Medical Council or any other regulatory body.


----------



## Sophrosyne (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Sure, the problem is that the State isn't very good at delivering those services.


Yet another thread in a long line of tiresome argumentative fallacy.


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> Yet another thread in a long line of tiresome argumentative fallacy.


Do you think that the State is good at delivering services?


----------



## Groucho (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Do you think that the State is good at delivering services?



Some parts are, other aren't.   Revenue, for example, are outstanding.    Social Protection aren't bad either.   Taxing one's car is a doddle!    And the HSE is doing pretty well too.


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> Some parts are, other aren't.   Revenue, for example, are outstanding.    Social Protection aren't bad either.   Taxing one's car is a doddle!


I agree. The areas where we collect and give out money are efficient. The Passport office is excellent. The CAO do a great job. 


Groucho said:


> And the HSE is doing pretty well too.


Really? Do you not think that one of the best funded healthcare systems in the world, and funded at that level for 30 years or more, should be doing better? 
I'm not saying that large private sector organisations are super efficient or that privatisation is the solution but for me the outstanding failure of the State is it's inability to regulate and manage the delivery of services to the public by the private sector or deliver those services directly.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> I agree. The areas where we collect and give out money are efficient. The Passport office is excellent. *The CAO do a great job.*


The CAO is a private company.


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The CAO is a private company.


That I didn't know.


----------



## Salvadore (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> It is the failure of the State and the State's employees to be competent that has seen the drift to extremist and populist politics in this country and others.



Ah that’s a bit of a leap to conclusion. The state’s employees respond to the will of serving governments. The government of the day dictates policies, priorities, urgency, etc etc. If a public body is not delivering a good service it’s because there’s no political will to do so OR the problem is so deep that it can’t be resolved within the lifetime of any single government (e.g. health, housing). No political party ever really looks beyond the next election. It’s one of the flaws of democracy.



Purple said:


> Nobody can ever be trusted to regulate themselves. That's why we have laws and police and courts. That's why some sectors have specific regulatory bodies which are constituted be law. You can call them professions if you have a hankering for the Anglo-ascendency class world of yesteryear but it's just the State overseeing and regulating the actions of people who work in specific jobs.
> If people could be trusted to regulate themselves there'd be no Medical Council or any other regulatory body.


The trouble is that the State isn’t geared to attracting the calibre of people needed to regulate complex professions. Again, this is down to political will.

 The State’s capacity to regulate the banks grew enormously but only after the manure hit the fan. The trouble is that when the fan isn’t being hit, all regulation is deemed excessive.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> The trouble is that the State isn’t geared to attracting the calibre of people needed to regulate complex professions. Again, this is down to political will.
> 
> The State’s capacity to regulate the banks grew enormously but only after the manure hit the fan.


Contradiction here.


----------



## Salvadore (29 Sep 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Contradiction here.


Not really.

The State is only _allowed _regulate properly in response to a crisis. Ordinarily, it’s not considered important enough to be given the resource needed to regulate effectively.

The Central Bank was resourced properly only after a crisis. If someone there had looked for better resource provision a couple of years earlier, they would have been laughed at.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> The State is only _allowed _regulate properly in response to a crisis. Ordinarily, it’s not considered important enough to be given the resource needed to regulate effectively.


That also contradicts your earlier point.


----------



## Salvadore (29 Sep 2022)

T McGibney said:


> That also contradicts your earlier point


I don’t see how.

My point is that the State doesn’t _do_ regulation as a matter of form and isn’t set up to do it properly. This changes of course in response to a crisis but only on an organisation-by-organisation basis. 

There’s no apparent appetite to ensure effective regulation consistently across the offices of the State.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> My point is that the State doesn’t _do_ regulation as a matter of form and isn’t set up to do it properly. This changes of course in response to a crisis but only on an organisation-by-organisation basis.


I don't wish to labour the point but your first sentence says that it can't regulate. Your second says it can when it wishes.


----------



## joe sod (29 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> The Central Bank was resourced properly only after a crisis. If someone there had looked for better resource provision a couple of years earlier, they would have been laughed at.


I partly agree with you, but the leadership of the central bank and financial regulator were not appointed by ability but by seniority in the civil service,  basically the longest serving guys were next in line for these positions.  Remember Patrick neary the financial regulator and Mr Hurley, the central bank governor,  how could we forget, they were like 2 rabbits caught in the headlights as the financial crisis struck.


----------



## Salvadore (29 Sep 2022)

T McGibney said:


> I don't wish to labour the point but your first sentence says that it can't regulate. Your second says it can when it wishes.


I said it wasn’t geared up to regulation (which is not the same as saying it can’t), principally because of an absence of political will. 

For example, in my experience, regulation can be assigned to administrative staff with little if any knowledge or experience of the functions they are being tasked with regulating. 

I don’t know for definite but I suspect this was the approach taken by the central bank pre-2008. Fast forward a short period and it’s suddenly geared up to conduct a global search of effective regulators.

My point is that the State does not generally have an interest in real regulation until the fan is troubled. 

The two points are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Salvadore (29 Sep 2022)

joe sod said:


> I partly agree with you, but the leadership of the central bank and financial regulator were not appointed by ability but by seniority in the civil service,  basically the longest serving guys were next in line for these positions.  Remember Patrick neary the financial regulator and Mr Hurley, the central bank governor,  how could we forget, they were like 2 rabbits caught in the headlights as the financial crisis struck.


That’s exactly my point. Regulation was a nonsense.

But they went from that country club scenario to the other extreme, conducting a global search to lead a best-in-class regulatory regime.

Similar crises will be required in other areas of State regulation before effectiveness can be anticipated.


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> Ah that’s a bit of a leap to conclusion. The state’s employees respond to the will of serving governments. The government of the day dictates policies, priorities, urgency, etc etc. If a public body is not delivering a good service it’s because there’s no political will to do so OR the problem is so deep that it can’t be resolved within the lifetime of any single government (e.g. health, housing). No political party ever really looks beyond the next election. It’s one of the flaws of democracy.


Or the Employees of that Body aren't competent or willing enough to structure their organisation in such as a way as to maximise the efficiency of said organisation and so better deliver services to the public. Structural inefficiency is the problem and politicians can't fix that. That requires a willing and able workforce. 


Salvadore said:


> The trouble is that the State isn’t geared to attracting the calibre of people needed to regulate complex professions. Again, this is down to political will.


I think the calibre of people doing the regulating is usually just fine. The problem is the calibre of people writing the legislation upon which the regulators regulate. 


Salvadore said:


> The State’s capacity to regulate the banks grew enormously but only after the manure hit the fan. The trouble is that when the fan isn’t being hit, all regulation is deemed excessive.


The problem isn't capacity it's capability and competence.


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> I said it wasn’t geared up to regulation (which is not the same as saying it can’t), principally because of an absence of political will.





Salvadore said:


> My point is that the State does not generally have an interest in real regulation until the fan is troubled.





Salvadore said:


> But they went from that country club scenario to the other extreme, conducting a global search to lead a best-in-class regulatory regime.
> 
> Similar crises will be required in other areas of State regulation before effectiveness can be anticipated.


Okay, so the problem isn't resources (money) and wouldn't be solved by more resources (money). The problem is/was structural and personal incompetence and the lack of the political will or institutional willingness or ability to fix it.

I'd like to see it fixed before we give them more money. If they fix it and they still need more money then by all means take it. But fix it first. And that applies to every aspect of what the State does. That's all.


----------



## Salvadore (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Or the Employees of that Body aren't competent or willing enough to structure their organisation in such as a way as to maximise the efficiency of said organisation and so better deliver services to the public.


That’s true to some degree. As has been alluded to, some are better than others. 

There can be an absence of effective leadership.


Purple said:


> I think the calibre of people doing the regulating is usually just fine. The problem is the calibre of people writing the legislation upon which the regulators regulate.


I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion. I think that the legislation is generally fine. It’s our enforcement capability that lets us down.


----------



## Salvadore (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Okay, so the problem isn't resources (money) and wouldn't be solved by more resources (money). The problem is/was structural and personal incompetence and the lack of the political will or institutional willingness or ability to fix it.
> 
> I'd like to see it fixed before we give them more money. If they fix it and they still need more money then by all means take it. But fix it first. And that applies to every aspect of what the State does. That's all.


You might not think it’s a resource issue but it ultimately is.

Imagine if the CBI had gone to the Department of Finance in 2003 and said ‘we’re concerned about our capacity to regulate effectively. We need a multiple of our current resources to avoid the fan being unreasonably troubled’. Do you honestly think the DoF would have said “no problem at all. How much do you need?”

I agree however that they should have at least asked.

The data protection commission is having a similar modern day barney on the issue of resources. 10 years ago, the office was headquartered over a Centra in portlaoise. Now it’s the de facto European regulator of multi-national tech giants. Its resources have grown hugely but they’re still not at the races.

They’re at least pressing constantly for additional resources but are in the queue along with other demands.

Will they get what they need? Keep an eye on the fan!


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> The data protection commission is having a similar modern day barney on the issue of resources. 10 years ago, the office was headquartered over a Centra in portlaoise. Now it’s the de facto European regulator of multi-national tech giants. Its resources have grown hugely but they’re still not at the races.
> 
> They’re at least pressing constantly for additional resources but are in the queue along with other demands.
> 
> Will they get what they need? Keep an eye on the fan!


I agree in this case. Possibly as a result of some of the lessons learned.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> You might not think it’s a resource issue but it ultimately is.
> 
> Imagine if the CBI had gone to the Department of Finance in 2003 and said ‘we’re concerned about our capacity to regulate effectively. We need a multiple of our current resources to avoid the fan being unreasonably troubled’. Do you honestly think the DoF would have said “no problem at all. How much do you need?”
> 
> ...


The Data Protection Commission is a unique example where it ended up as you say the de facto European wide regulator.

It is not a similar situation to the Central Bank's position at the time at all.


----------



## Salvadore (29 Sep 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> The Data Protection Commission is a unique example where it ended up as you say the de facto European wide regulator.
> 
> It is not a similar situation to the Central Bank's position at the time at all.


I was using it to illustrate the point that effective regulation isn’t a priority for the State, regardless of how obvious the need might be to those who take an interest.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> I was using it to illustrate the point that effective regulation isn’t a priority for the State, regardless of how obvious the need might be to those who take an interest.


Well we can see that e.g. in the Mica scandal.

But a State could be well on top of its current regulatory responsibilities, and been caught on the hop with what happened with the explosion in scope of the DPC.


----------



## Salvadore (29 Sep 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> But a State could be well on top of its current regulatory responsibilities, and been caught on the hop with what happened with the explosion in scope of the DPC.



It could be. And should be. But it generally isn’t.


----------



## Groucho (29 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Really? Do you not think that one of the best funded healthcare systems in the world, and funded at that level for 30 years or more, should be doing better?
> I'm not saying that large private sector organisations are super efficient or that privatisation is the solution but for me the outstanding failure of the State is it's inability to regulate and manage the delivery of services to the public by the private sector or deliver those services directly.



I've already stated twice on this thread that it's not doing too badly.     Of course it could be better, but you can say that about virtually any organisation.    (For example, quite incredibly there are some people around who don't believe that Ryanair are an outstanding company!)

And the regurgitation of the claim that it's one of the best funded healthcare systems in the world is neither here nor there.   It's a mess and has been since it was muddled together at the start.   Even before it was established, the HSE was handed a poisoned chalice by the unmentionable Bertie Ahern who promised the Health Unions that not a single employee would lose their job due to the HSE being set up - the man should immediately have been kicked out of office for that insanity!


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> I've already stated twice on this thread that it's not doing too badly.     Of course it could be better, but you can say that about virtually any organisation.    (For example, quite incredibly there are some people around who don't believe that Ryanair are an outstanding company!)


Are you seriously suggesting that there is an equivalence in either the importance or dysfunctionality of either organisation?



Groucho said:


> And the regurgitation of the claim that it's one of the best funded healthcare systems in the world is neither here nor there.


It's central to the discussion. The State set up a totally dysfunctional organisation with massive duplication of processes which is staffed with people who, incredibly, refer to themselves as heroes but who resist meaningful attempts to reduce that duplication of process and waste and wilfully ignore their own culpability for the chaos and waste around them. Without addressing any of those structural and cultural issues the State (the government and the Civil Service) continue to pour more and more money into it. The net result is suffering and waste and a diminution of the country they claim to serve. The HSE is the most glaring example but it's certainly not an outlier.  



Groucho said:


> It's a mess and has been since it was muddled together at the start.   Even before it was established, the HSE was handed a poisoned chalice by the unmentionable Bertie Ahern who promised the Health Unions that not a single employee would lose their job due to the HSE being set up - the man should immediately have been kicked out of office for that insanity!


I agree completely, so how can you say it's not doing too badly? It's like the old line "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the Opera?".


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> I was using it to illustrate the point that effective regulation isn’t a priority for the State, regardless of how obvious the need might be to those who take an interest.


So is it a good thing that the State keeps betting bigger without addressing these fundamental issues first?


----------



## Groucho (30 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> The State set up a totally dysfunctional organisation with massive duplication of processes which is staffed with people who, incredibly, refer to themselves as heroes but who resist meaningful attempts to reduce that duplication of process and waste and wilfully ignore their own culpability for the chaos and waste around them. Without addressing any of those structural and cultural issues the State (the government and the Civil Service) continue to pour more and more money into it. The net result is suffering and waste and a diminution of the country they claim to serve. The HSE is the most glaring example but it's certainly not an outlier.



Exactly.

And, given those massive constraints - allied to the unending stream of populist political interference (seen most recently in the proposed closure of the 'unfit for purpose' Navan A&E Unit) - I don't think that the HSE is doing a bad job.      Of course I write this having just received my 4th Covid vaccination and flu jab free of charge and receiving my 5th Covid certificate by email 24 hours later.      Well done, HSE!


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And, given those massive constraints - allied to the unending stream of populist political interference in the proposed closure of the 'unfit for purpose' Navan A&E Unit - I don't think that the HSE is doing a bad job.      Of course I write this having just received my 4th Covid vaccination and flu jab free of charge and receiving my 5th Covid certificate by email 24 hours later.      Well done, HSE!


Okay, so taking into account that it is an utterly dysfunctional organisation they can deliver some services well. That certainly doesn't mean they are doing a good job. That means that they deliver some good services. That's two completely different things.

Your GP got paid €33 per shot for the Covid jab and €11 per shot for the Flu jab (€30 plus a €10% pension contribution and €10 plus a €10% pension contribution). So it wasn't free, it cost the State €143, plus the cost of the vaccines, plus their internal procurement and administration cost to give you those injections. The total is probably well north of €200.


----------



## Groucho (30 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Okay, so taking into account that it is an utterly dysfunctional organisation they can deliver some services well. That certainly doesn't mean they are doing a good job. That means that they deliver some good services. That's two completely different things.
> 
> Your GP got paid €33 per shot for the Covid jab and €11 per shot for the Flu jab (€30 plus a €10% pension contribution and €10 plus a €10% pension contribution). So it wasn't free, it cost the State €143, plus the cost of the vaccines, plus their internal procurement and administration cost to give you those injections. The total is probably well north of €200.



I'm out - feel free to argue with yourself until you get bored and fall asleep.


----------



## noproblem (30 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> I'm out - feel free to argue with yourself until you get bored and fall asleep.


Wouldn't worry too much about Purple to tell you the truth. If it's anything to do with the public service or old people, he'd rather see that section more or less eliminated. Amazes me how much time he has for posting. If he worked, or had qualified to work in the PS he wouldn't have that time to constantly moan


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> I'm out - feel free to argue with yourself until you get bored and fall asleep.


Grand so, but if you say silly things people will question you.


----------



## Salvadore (30 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> So is it a good thing that the State keeps betting bigger without addressing these fundamental issues first?


Of course not. But my point is that the extent to which the State is empowered to address these issues without the support of successive governments is limited.


----------



## Groucho (30 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Grand so, but if you say silly things people will question you.



Happy to learn from your hard-won experience!


----------



## Salvadore (30 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> The HSE is the most glaring example but it's certainly not an outlier.



But it is really. It’s an absolute outlier in terms of its return on expenditure. It’s not the only example of PS inefficiency by any means but please don’t use it as an example of the PS experience generally or as evidence of the blanket ‘gross inefficiency’ to which you refer. That’s quite disingenuous.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2022)

Groucho said:


> Happy to learn from your hard-won experience!


Yes, I have the unfortunate habit of questioning the silly things people say.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> But it is really. It’s an absolute outlier in terms of its return on expenditure. It’s not the only example of PS inefficiency by any means but please don’t use it as an example of the PS experience generally or as evidence of the blanket ‘gross inefficiency’ to which you refer. That’s quite disingenuous.


Fair point, it is an outlier but it's high profile only because it's such a big drain on resources. 

Remember when Irish Water was formed and the Chief Executive said that it was over staffed by 3000 people from a total workforce of 7000. That doesn't mean that the other 3000 didn't work hard etc, it meant that there was gross duplication of process when the service was delivered at a county level rather than a national one.


----------



## Groucho (30 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Yes, I have the unfortunate habit of questioning the silly things people say.



My commiserations to your family and both of your friends.   (I think you have two?)


----------



## Salvadore (30 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Fair point, it is an outlier but it's high profile only because it's such a big drain on resources.
> 
> Remember when Irish Water was formed and the Chief Executive said that it was over staffed by 3000 people from a total workforce of 7000. That doesn't mean that the other 3000 didn't work hard etc, it meant that there was gross duplication of process when the service was delivered at a county level rather than a national one.


That’s a fair point. And look at how efficient his organisation became as result of his leadership.

There’s no incentive for senior public servants to highlight, much less address, inefficiencies when they’re ultimately castigated for doing so by the political classes.


----------



## Groucho (30 Sep 2022)

Salvadore said:


> And look at how efficient his organisation became as result of his leadership.
> 
> There’s no incentive for senior public servants to highlight, much less address, inefficiencies when they’re ultimately castigated for doing so by the political classes.



It may be efficient but it's still massively overstaffed (over 3,000 in Local Authorities who refuse to transfer) and 825 in IW itself.   The numbers in the LAs are falling very slowly due to natural attrition but, as in the HSE, the PS Unions are still calling the shots - and the taxpayer picks up the tab.


----------



## Salvadore (1 Oct 2022)

Groucho said:


> It may be efficient but it's still massively overstaffed (over 3,000 in Local Authorities who refuse to transfer) and 825 in IW itself.   The numbers in the LAs are falling very slowly due to natural attrition but, as in the HSE, the PS Unions are still calling the shots - and the taxpayer picks up the tab.


Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

You’re absolutely right. An organisation that’s massively overstaffed to this level is hugely inefficient. 

It’s shows the extent of the problem where a CEO, who identifies a problem, doesn’t have the authority to do anything about it.

It happens throughout the PS (and perhaps in many private organisations). People are given responsibility but not authority. It’s an impossible predicament.


----------



## Purple (3 Oct 2022)

Groucho said:


> My commiserations to your family and both of your friends.   (I think you have two?)


I'll pass them on, thanks. It's my family that I feel most sorry for.


----------



## Purple (3 Oct 2022)

Salvadore said:


> There’s no incentive for senior public servants to highlight, much less address, inefficiencies when they’re ultimately castigated for doing so by the political classes.


That's an interesting point. Have you an example of what happening? I'm sure it does but a specific example would be informative.


Groucho said:


> The numbers in the LAs are falling very slowly due to natural attrition but, as in the HSE, the PS Unions are still calling the shots - and the taxpayer picks up the tab.


It's easy to blame the Unions, and they certainly are a cancer within the State sector, but they shouldn't be allowed to have the power they have.


Salvadore said:


> It’s shows the extent of the problem where a CEO, who identifies a problem, doesn’t have the authority to do anything about it.
> 
> It happens throughout the PS (and perhaps in many private organisations). People are given responsibility but not authority. It’s an impossible predicament.


I've no doubt that many private organisations are just as bad, and not just Banks, but the State and the services it provides is more important so a "yea well those guys over there are worse" defence doesn't stand up.
Giving people responsibility but not authority is the ultimate poisoned chalice.


----------



## Salvadore (3 Oct 2022)

Purple said:


> That's an interesting point. Have you an example of what happening? I'm sure it does but a specific example would be informative.



The Irish Water example is as good as any. A new CEO, filled with enthusiasm, might assume that increasing efficiency and reducing costs and staff numbers might go down well with his employers. 

Maybe it would but, more likely, the political classes are indifferent. They have no skin in the game. There are no votes in well-run public bodies. 

What _would _trouble politicians is if, say, attempts to introduce redundancies led to industrial relations problems that provided fodder for the opposition.

The real role of public CEOs is to keep the ship steady until such time as there’s a controversy. Then their role is to provide a distraction from government and to be the focal point for public ire (see Patrick Neary).


----------

