The State is getting bigger

tallpaul said:
Obviously. However there is an indisputable need for the State and the State's services.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Purple said:
Do you think that the State is good at delivering services?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Contradiction here.
 
T McGibney said:
Contradiction here.
Click to expand...
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 said:
That also contradicts your earlier point
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The problem isn't capacity it's capability and competence.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Salvadore said:
My point is that the State does not generally have an interest in real regulation until the fan is troubled.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register