None of the main parties have any fundamental policies that they can hang their hat on. Left, right, it doesn’t matter. They’re driven by focus groups, not principles."Left" these days has the same meaning as always i.e. tending towards socialist. But "Right" has developed a pejorative connotation, suggesting nativist and racist tendencies.
Both FF and FG are "right" in the sense of being in favour of the "enterprise economy" but without the pejorative connotations. They are "left" in that, as @Purple keeps reminding us they have very progressive tax and welfare policies.
Dare I say it but we seem to have a very civilised and balanced political landscape. Kinda paradoxical as the big three have their roots in violent agitation.
Yes that is democracy.They bend to whatever policy priorities give them the best chance of staying in power.
But democracy doesn’t have to be like that.Yes that is democracy.
It's also down to the electorate.But democracy doesn’t have to be like that.
There are no ideological differences between the main parties. They don’t offer any distinct policy positions that might offer a choice. That’s not healthy.
When they are getting double welfare payments and double child benefits and pension increases, why would they? The electorate has been bought with US corporation taxes effectivelyIt's also down to the electorate.
There doesn't seem to be a particular appetite for change.
I think that's a good thing. I'm not a fan of ideology. It tends to have a lot of confirmation biases and place a higher value on emotions and "feelings" than data and evidence (Nobody making an argument who starts a sentence with "I just feel" should be listened to or taken seriously).There are no ideological differences between the main parties.
There are no ideological differences between the main parties. They don’t offer any distinct policy positions that might offer a choice. That’s not healthy.
Maybe my use of the word ideological was a bit strong. My point really was that the parties don’t seem to stand for anything in particular. They just want to be there and are willing to go with the wind to stay there.Our system requires compromise and a negotiated program for government. The uncompromising ideology of some of the parties makes them fragile and unsuitable for government in this country. Anyone who has aspirations to shape change in this country would be arrogant to demand ideological purity before being willing to consider partnership.
Because in reality they don't have the power to do anything about it.While this approach is perhaps understandable, it’s little wonder that they tolerate and overlook inefficiencies and the consequences of poor public service delivery.
That’s not necessarily true. I worked in the system for a couple of decades and the reality is that anything can happen with sufficient political will.Because in reality they don't have the power to do anything about it.
Really? Has there been any real reform of the Health Service in the last 30 years? That means removing bureaucracy and waste rather than just adding more layers of management and administration. Have all State Sector contracts (civil servants, public servants, nurses, Gardaí etc) been simplified and streamlined in order to computerise all payroll function?That’s not necessarily true. I worked in the system for a couple of decades and the reality is that anything can happen with sufficient political will.
The new Children's hospital will be an interesting watch, will all those transferring to it move onto new contracts with common terms and conditions or will they do as in previous mergers and create a monster like previous mergers where all transferring keep their legacy terms including variations in hours, holidays, etc.....Really? Has there been any real reform of the Health Service in the last 30 years?
Exactly, like happened when Tallaght Hospital opened and the staff from the Meath, the Adelaide and Harcourt Street Hospitals all transferred there on their old contracts resulting in a rostering nightmare and a massive administration overhead. The people who objected to the standardisation of their contracts have to accept that they are in part to blame for the people dying on trollies in the A&E department.The new Children's hospital will be an interesting watch, will all those transferring to it move onto new contracts with common terms and conditions or will they do as in previous mergers and create a monster like previous mergers where all transferring keep their legacy terms including variations in hours, holidays, etc.....
Well in fairness you picked the single most difficult policy objective to disprove an otherwise reasonable point.Really? Has there been any real reform of the Health Service in the last 30 years? That means removing bureaucracy and waste rather than just adding more layers of management and administration. Have all State Sector contracts (civil servants, public servants, nurses, Gardaí etc) been simplified and streamlined in order to computerise all payroll function?
Can State Employees be sacked for waste and incompetence? Can they even be named at a PAC meeting?
You get the idea. Adding more stuff isn't reform. Removing more stuff than you add is reform. Delivering more services with the same or less money without reducing pay is reform.
So politicians can add, add laws, add regulations, add services, add layers of admin and cost... but can they reform? Can they reduce? Can they streamline? Can they merge organisations and remove duplication? When Irish water was formed the head man staid that they had 3000 excess staff out of a total staff of 7000 because of the duplication of services in the old county council model of delivering water. Two points on that; 1) None of those excess staff were made redundant or, where applicable, moved to other areas of the public service where there are staff shortages. 2) What does that tell us about the monumental waste of human resources within the State sector? Can any politician change any of that? I'd say there's no chance, but I'd love to be proven wrong.Well in fairness you picked the single most difficult policy objective to disprove an otherwise reasonable point.
There is a lot that goes on below the radar that you don’t necessarily hear about. Ministers have the opportunity to effect change in a variety of policy areas in they have the chops and the support of cabinet. Some may be relatively modest (e.g. health and safety requirements) in the big scheme of things but it would be politically-driven progress nonetheless.
But measuring political effectiveness solely on the ability to reform the health service is a high bar for anyone to clear.
PBP on the election count Saturday night were saying the stood for the end to capitalism. SF obviously a united Ireland but then anything that is the opposite for what the Govt does.Maybe my use of the word ideological was a bit strong. My point really was that the parties don’t seem to stand for anything in particular. They just want to be there and are willing to go with the wind to stay there.
Well for example, Richard Bruton, when he was minister for enterprise, drove the project to reform the work-related complaints mechanisms and to merge the disparate complaint resolution bodies into a single body (WRC). It was his pet project for which he took personal responsibility.So politicians can add, add laws, add regulations, add services, add layers of admin and cost... but can they reform? Can they reduce? Can they streamline? Can they merge organisations and remove duplication? When Irish water was formed the head man staid that they had 3000 excess staff out of a total staff of 7000 because of the duplication of services in the old county council model of delivering water. Two points on that; 1) None of those excess staff were made redundant or, where applicable, moved to other areas of the public service where there are staff shortages. 2) What does that tell us about the monumental waste of human resources within the State sector? Can any politician change any of that? I'd say there's no chance, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Wasn't that a recommendation of An Bord Snip Nua?Well for example, Richard Bruton, when he was minister for enterprise, drove the project to reform the work-related complaints mechanisms and to merge the disparate complaint resolution bodies into a single body (WRC). It was his pet project for which he took personal responsibility.
I don’t know where the idea originated but I know he fairly drove it to make it happen.Wasn't that a recommendation of An Bord Snip Nua?
Fair enough. Do you know what the net reduction in headcount was as a result of these mergers?Well for example, Richard Bruton, when he was minister for enterprise, drove the project to reform the work-related complaints mechanisms and to merge the disparate complaint resolution bodies into a single body (WRC). It was his pet project for which he took personal responsibility.
Admittedly, some objectives are more challenging but you’re pointing to the most difficult.