Predictions

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.

They bend to whatever policy priorities give them the best chance of staying in power.
 
Salvadore said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's also down to the electorate.
There doesn't seem to be a particular appetite for change.
 
Sophrosyne said:
It's also down to the electorate.
There doesn't seem to be a particular appetite for change.
Click to expand...
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 effectively
 
Salvadore said:
There are no ideological differences between the main parties.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Salvadore said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

While this approach is perhaps understandable, it’s little wonder that they tolerate and overlook inefficiencies and the consequences of poor public service delivery.

They operate on the basis that nothing is a problem until, suddenly, it’s a problem. Then there’s the usual hand-wringing and horrified shrieks from the opposition.

Nothing changes. Complacency reigns.
 
Salvadore said:
While this approach is perhaps understandable, it’s little wonder that they tolerate and overlook inefficiencies and the consequences of poor public service delivery.
Click to expand...
Because in reality they don't have the power to do anything about it.

The biggest lie politicians tell is that they can change things.

In reality they often make thinks worse by promising that additional services will be provided when the people required to provide the existing services don't exist and no amount of money can magic skilled people into existence.

The reply to "We need additional resources for (Insert service here)" Should be "I know, so would I, but the people required to provide the service don't exist so despite having the money we still can't do it". Do you think that honest politician would get re-elected?
 
Purple said:
Because in reality they don't have the power to do anything about it.
Click to expand...
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.

However, a senior civil servant’s dream is a minister who’s prepared to be led rather than having any view of their own.

Sadly, the days of properly-informed ministers with thought-through ideas seem to have passed. Most of them are just happy to be there.
 
Salvadore said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Purple said:
Really? Has there been any real reform of the Health Service in the last 30 years?
Click to expand...
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.....
 
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.
 
Reactions: Leo
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.
 
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.

The most valuable resource we have is people. The worst form of waste is the misallocation of labour. It's far worse than wasting money. In the context of what the State wastes, in the context of a HSE that is like the old way of delivering water, in that context the overspend on the National Children's Hospital is chicken feed. If they streamlined the way in which labour was managed, allocated and delivered within the new hospital and it cost an extra billion up front then it would be the best value for money that we've seem from the State Sector in decades.
 
Salvadore said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

My father once said FF were the party of small farmers and the ordinary worker, FG the party of big farmers and those with big cars. It was a good way of understanding the core difference back then, nowadays, not so sure.
 
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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register