Why have all the estimates recently been so far wide of the mark?

[RMCF]

Watching the news tonight I noticed that yet another estimated cost/loss/deficit etc has been way off the mark?

The Queen & Obama visits. "Its gonna cost €20m". Eh! Seriously? OK then, we will be happy with that.

Whats that you say? "Sorry, its more like €36m, sorry".

Of course other examples probably start with the amount Anglo was going to cost.

I also remember a stress test that some folk (cant remember who) carried out in the summer of European Banks. There was a figure quoted that the banks would need recapitalisation of €2billion.

And what did it end up a few months later? €120billion!! How far out was that? And it will probably be even more now.

Why are so many of these expert opinions so far wide of the mark?

 

[T McGibney]

None of these are expert opinions, just spin produced by PR gurus and high-level civil servants to protect their political masters from short-term public anger/embarrassment.

 

[Chris]

None of these are expert opinions, just spin produced by PR gurus and high-level civil servants to protect their political masters from short-term public anger/embarrassment.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Basically there are no repercussions for being wide off the mark. As a politicians you get an expert to confirm your opinion/estimate, and then go ahead with it. If you overshoot the budget, well you just borrow or tax more. You are not answerable to owners and customers who have a choice to stop funding you.

 

[Complainer]

You are not answerable to owners and customers who have a choice to stop funding you.

Perhaps you haven't heard about our democratic system here with periodic elections.

 

[Chris]

Perhaps you haven't heard about our democratic system here with periodic elections.

So you think it is OK for politicians to be allowed to go for 4 years making wild and wrong forecasts without immediate repercussions? And making wrong forecasts and estimates has been an election issue since when? You are also assuming that voters make rational decisions, but that is a whole different issue.

 

[Complainer]

So you think it is OK for politicians to be allowed to go for 4 years making wild and wrong forecasts without immediate repercussions?

Like I said, it is called democracy. Do you have an alternative?

You are also assuming that voters make rational decisions, but that is a whole different issue.

You are also assuming that your own views and opinions are more rational than voters as a whole, but that is a whole different issue.

 

[T McGibney]

Like I said, it is called democracy. Do you have an alternative?

There are countless variations in and degrees of democracy. I believe that the party whip system in the Oireachtas means that the Irish version of democracy is a perversion of the concept, in that an authoritarian Taoiseach can almost rule by decree - Bertie Ahern and CJ Haughey being two recent examples - and normally remain utterly unaccountable for their decisions.

 

[z107]

I haven't.
I do know we live in a one party state, ruled by fail gael.

 

[Chris]

Like I said, it is called democracy. Do you have an alternative?

Actually we don't, we live in a republic. In a pure democracy 51% of the public could decide to take everything from the other 49% and kick them out of the country. Don't get me wrong I am not opposed to democratic elections, but democracy is not some exceptionally perfect system, as it is often made out to be; it is deeply and inherently flawed, albeit not as flawed as other options.
In a republic we have democratic elections, but the rule of law, as dictated by the constitution, is ultimately what guides and restricts decision making. So to answer your question, my alternative would be a better and stronger constitution that restricts what actions elected politicians can take to infringe on people's liberties, whether they be the majority or minority.

You are also assuming that your own views and opinions are more rational than voters as a whole, but that is a whole different issue.

Not quite what my point was. My point is that the electorate as a whole makes decisions more based on how they believe they will most benefit, even if the policies that this vote results in have a negative effect on society as a whole.
Poor people tend to vote for those that promise the most redistribution from rich to poor, wealthy people tend to do the opposite, irrespective of whether the actual policy does harm or good, and irrespective of what numerous other policies are introduced.
Now I 'm not saying that you vote in that way, or even that all people vote in that way, but it is certainly the way the vast majority of people vote.

There are countless variations in and degrees of democracy. I believe that the party whip system in the Oireachtas means that the Irish version of democracy is a perversion of the concept, in that an authoritarian Taoiseach can almost rule by decree - Bertie Ahern and CJ Haughey being two recent examples - and normally remain utterly unaccountable for their decisions.

I fully agree!

 

[Complainer]

There are countless variations in and degrees of democracy. I believe that the party whip system in the Oireachtas means that the Irish version of democracy is a perversion of the concept, in that an authoritarian Taoiseach can almost rule by decree - Bertie Ahern and CJ Haughey being two recent examples - and normally remain utterly unaccountable for their decisions.

I'm not sure that problems with Bertie and CJ are down to problems in the system. These were problems of greed, absence of ethics, and lots and lots of bad decisions.

The whip issue is more interesting. I can see very good practical reasons for having a whip. I know the Senators and Congressmen don't have a whip system in the US - does it work out any better over there?

Not quite what my point was. My point is that the electorate as a whole makes decisions more based on how they believe they will most benefit, even if the policies that this vote results in have a negative effect on society as a whole.
Poor people tend to vote for those that promise the most redistribution from rich to poor, wealthy people tend to do the opposite, irrespective of whether the actual policy does harm or good, and irrespective of what numerous other policies are introduced.
Now I 'm not saying that you vote in that way, or even that all people vote in that way, but it is certainly the way the vast majority of people vote.

You are over-simplifying. People vote for a whole raft of reasons - who they've met, who they like the look of, gender reasons, family history reasons, ethical reasons and for some people, economic reasons.

 

[T McGibney]

I'm not sure that problems with Bertie and CJ are down to problems in the system. These were problems of greed, absence of ethics, and lots and lots of bad decisions.

Any system that allows leaders to get away scot free for donkeys years with greed, unethical behaviour and bad decisions, is itself deficient.

The whip issue is more interesting. I can see very good practical reasons for having a whip. I know the Senators and Congressmen don't have a whip system in the US - does it work out any better over there?

I'm sure that the Vatican is full of senior officials who see 'very good practical reasons' for Papal Infallibility and who point out the regular battles and splits within the Anglican Church as their justification.

 

[Chris]

The whip issue is more interesting. I can see very good practical reasons for having a whip. I know the Senators and Congressmen don't have a whip system in the US - does it work out any better over there?

I think it does, because individuals can stick to their principles and not fear being expelled from the party.

You are over-simplifying. People vote for a whole raft of reasons - who they've met, who they like the look of, gender reasons, family history reasons, ethical reasons and for some people, economic reasons.

Bottom line, people vote for whoever promises to provide them with the most beneficial policies. People look at suggested party policy and then choose from the available candidates.

 

[roker]

Politicians are supposed to represent their constituency the whip overrules this. It looks like we are becoming a dictatorship with some of the recent laws, How can they make you pay property tax by taking off your wages or Social welfare? who allowed the law through for a €3 toll to increase to €100s if not paid on time? Speeding offences cost you twice the fine and points if you dare to challenge them, plus you are not now stopped at the time of the offence, its practically automated at the expense of justice, how can they penalise the majority of us for a minority of abusers by making us tax cars that are not used?

 

[horusd]

One of the things that gets up my nose is estimates of x 1000's of jobs in this or that plan or industry, i.e green energy. They seem to pluck these figures out of the air.

 

[Complainer]

How can they make you pay property tax by taking off your wages or Social welfare? who allowed the law through for a €3 toll to increase to €100s if not paid on time? Speeding offences cost you twice the fine and points if you dare to challenge them, plus you are not now stopped at the time of the offence, its practically automated at the expense of justice

All great ideas in my book.

 

[z107]

All great ideas in my book.

Yes, if can afford to pay such charges.

I regard attachment orders etc, as theft. Money extorted and then misappropriated.

 

[Purple]

One of the things that gets up my nose is estimates of x 1000's of jobs in this or that plan or industry, i.e green energy. They seem to pluck these figures out of the air.

I agree but “the air” wasn’t the place I was thinking of.

 

[csirl]

The answer to the OPs question is quite simple, and if you talk to any senior civil servant in private I've no doubt they'll confirm.

Generally speaking the civil service is very good at estimating the costs. An accurate figure is usually put forward internally. However, policital advisors and pr gurus decide either (i) that they through 'their extensive experience' know better than the civil servants who have access to all the data OR (ii) the pr gurus decide the amount is too much to put into the public domain. Net result is that the published figure is very different to the estimate.

 

[Complainer]

Yes, if can afford to pay such charges.

I regard attachment orders etc, as theft. Money extorted and then misappropriated.

There are a large number of exclusions on the household charge, so anyone who can't afford to pay won't be paying, and won't be chased for not paying. If you can't afford to pay large toll-bridge penalties, then pay your bill on time, like the rest of us do. Simple solutions with no drama.

 

[T McGibney]

There are a large number of exclusions on the household charge, so anyone who can't afford to pay won't be paying, and won't be chased for not paying. If you can't afford to pay large toll-bridge penalties, then pay your bill on time, like the rest of us do. Simple solutions with no drama.

Unfortunately some of the more vulnerable people in society end up getting into trouble by falling foul of such draconian regulations. Usually through a lack of basic self-organisation skills that the rest of us take for granted. I have heard some experts explain this as one of the causes of higher incidence of depression, self-harm and suicide amongst certain groups in society.