Commission on Welfare and Taxation

[WolfeTone]

@RetirementPlan dont disagree with any of that but at the end of the day their remit is constrained to advising the government how to keep a balanced budget.
This is not actually a difficult thing to do. I could it for a fraction of the cost.

- don't spend money over and above what you can afford.

See. It's simple really and I don't need any staff or anything like that.

What the FAC do not have to contend with is the real social politics of the day - the mica redress, rental crisis in Dublin, students in Cork queing at food banks, sex abuse scandals in Donegal healthcare homes, etc, etc, etc
All of these matters, and much more, demand attention invariably leading to increases in funding.
If politicians don't deliver they face expulsion, and face letting the other crowd in.

The FAC doesn't face any of that. It just faces the dilemma of how to advise the government to run fiscally prudent budgets which I have already presented a fool-proof formula at zero cost to the taxpayer.

 

[RetirementPlan]

The problem with setting up all those commissions and advisory panels, scientists, etc, is that the powers that be, ie, The Goverment, don't give them any power to implement their findings or anything else either. We then have the politics of it coming home to roost, in that the findings wouldn't be popular decisions if implemented. Why not give some power to all those bodies that are set up, and take the politics out of it.

We give powers to statutory bodies through legislation. Every statutory body will have legislation setting out their functions and powers.. This is done very clearly, with little room for doubt. All the bodies like HSE, RSA, TUSLA, HSA and many more have specific powers to carry out their functions, independent of Government. Government gives the funding, the bodies carry out their functions within their statutory powers.

Giving statutory bodies powers to set Government policy would be another matter entirely.

 

[RetirementPlan]

@RetirementPlan dont disagree with any of that but at the end of the day their remit is constrained to advising the government how to keep a balanced budget.
This is not actually a difficult thing to do. I could it for a fraction of the cost.

- don't spend money over and above what you can afford.

See. It's simple really and I don't need any staff or anything like that.

What the FAC do not have to contend with is the real social politics of the day - the mica redress, rental crisis in Dublin, students in Cork queing at food banks, sex abuse scandals in Donegal healthcare homes, etc, etc, etc
All of these matters, and much more, demand attention invariably leading to increases in funding.
If politicians don't deliver they face expulsion, and face letting the other crowd in.

The FAC doesn't face any of that. It just faces the dilemma of how to advise the government to run fiscally prudent budgets which I have already presented a fool-proof formula at zero cost to the taxpayer.

I'm no economist, but I'm fairly sure every economist recognised that funding governments is different to funding households or funding your corner shop. There are very good reasons for Governments to borrow, particularly when stimulus is needed to avoid diving into recession, and there are dangers in over-borrowing. With all due respect to your simple solutions, I'll stick with the experts on this.

 

[WolfeTone]

@RetirementPlan of course, I'm being flippant.
However the fundamental premise of being fiscally prudent is central to FAC. That may involve deficit spending at particular junctures as much as running surpluses.
The point being, I fail to see what the FAC offers that is not already known to simple street folk like me.
And I don't cost €1m plus a year.

 

[RetirementPlan]

@RetirementPlan of course, I'm being flippant.
However the fundamental premise of being fiscally prudent is central to FAC. That may involve deficit spending at particular junctures as much as running surpluses.
The point being, I fail to see what the FAC offers that is not already known to simple street folk like me.
And I don't cost €1m plus a year.

If we had the FAC in 2006 and 2007, waving the same warning flags that people like David McWilliams, Richard Curran and Morgan Kelly were waving, do you think we might have sorted ourselves out sooner, before things went right down the toilet?

A warning from the FAC has a bit more weight than the off-the-cuff opinion of the man-on-the-street.

Government avoiding ‘hard choices’ on budget - watchdog warns

Fiscal Advisory Council says Coalition’s revised spending plans may overheat economy

www.irishtimes.com

 

[WolfeTone]

If we had the FAC in 2006 and 2007, waving the same warning flags that people like David McWilliams, Richard Curran and Morgan Kelly were waving, do you think we might have sorted ourselves out sooner, before things went right down the toilet?

Impossible to say.
I'd be fairly confident that flag wavers, the like of Mcwilliams and Kelly, would never get a gig on FAC anyway. But I could be wrong.


It's not the point anyway.
The point is demonstrated in the IT article you post.
What is the FAC offering that isn't already known?

- If you cut taxes and increase borrowing you risk overheating the economy and we are vulnerable to economic global shocks.

See, more advice very much on par with the FAC and all for free.

The FAC is a sideshow. At a cost of €1m it is handy gig for those involved. It serves a purpose for government to use when they choose to make the 'hard choices' otherwise it is just ignored.

'Government avoiding "hard choices"'
Perhaps. But that's because government has hard choices to make.

The FAC does not.

 

[Sarenco]

I didn't say I wanted to

It certainly looked like you were advocating that this unelected quango should have the power to implement their recommendations -

The Goverment, don't give them any power to implement their findings or anything else either. We then have the politics of it coming home to roost, in that the findings wouldn't be popular decisions if implemented. Why not give some power to all those bodies that are set up, and take the politics out of it.

 

[noproblem]

It certainly looked like you were advocating that this unelected quango should have the power to implement their recommendations -

If English is your first language it's fairly obvious I didn't.

 

[Sarenco]

So you don’t think it’s problematic that the commission doesn’t have the power to implement their recommendations, right?

The problem with setting up all those commissions and advisory panels, scientists, etc, is that the powers that be, ie, The Goverment, don't give them any power to implement their findings or anything else either. We then have the politics of it coming home to roost, in that the findings wouldn't be popular decisions if implemented. Why not give some power to all those bodies that are set up, and take the politics out of it.

 

[Purple]

If we had the FAC in 2006 and 2007, waving the same warning flags that people like David McWilliams, Richard Curran and Morgan Kelly were waving, do you think we might have sorted ourselves out sooner, before things went right down the toilet?

A warning from the FAC has a bit more weight than the off-the-cuff opinion of the man-on-the-street.

Government avoiding ‘hard choices’ on budget - watchdog warns

Fiscal Advisory Council says Coalition’s revised spending plans may overheat economy

www.irishtimes.com

Richard Bruton made a speech in the Dail clearly outlining the faults in the pro cycling policies of the government. As far as I’m aware he was the only TD to do so. All the rest only said “More!”.

 

[Purple]

I guess we can get back on track after your slightly confusing typo. I'd be more inclined to judge Bruton by what he achieved in Government rather than what he said in opposition.

FF and their partners were in office for most of the last 40 years. Populism pays. It also causes recessions. Now that FF have been burned by that they are seeking to behave in a relatively prudent manner. That's why the new FF, the Shinners, are doing so well. Those who espouse rational policies don't win elections.

But again, the existence of 'other voices' doesn't negate the need for the FAC. There are always other voices on everything, the economists who predicted ten of the last two recessions. There's no difficulty in finding people who were right in hindsight. That doesn't negate the need for expert, independent economic advice for Government on financial matters.

I've no problem with the FAC. I've a problem with the general inertia that grips the State Sector and the inability of those within it to effect positive change. By any reasonable metric our State Sector is too small but given the appalling track record of absorbing money without improving services I've no confidence that a larger State sector will improve things. Appointing insiders to advisory boards, to give the same advice they gave when they were part of the permanent government, will achieve nothing. They can't see the wood for the trees. There is no 'Other Voices' in the mix. They have that voice echoing in their head, like the anti-Obama, whispering "No we can't".

 

[RetirementPlan]

Impossible to say.
I'd be fairly confident that flag wavers, the like of Mcwilliams and Kelly, would never get a gig on FAC anyway. But I could be wrong.


It's not the point anyway.
The point is demonstrated in the IT article you post.
What is the FAC offering that isn't already known?

- If you cut taxes and increase borrowing you risk overheating the economy and we are vulnerable to economic global shocks.

See, more advice very much on par with the FAC and all for free.

The FAC is a sideshow. At a cost of €1m it is handy gig for those involved. It serves a purpose for government to use when they choose to make the 'hard choices' otherwise it is just ignored.

'Government avoiding "hard choices"'
Perhaps. But that's because government has hard choices to make.

The FAC does not.

Somebody like Seamus Coffey proved himself as not being afraid to speak out and contradict the Government view. It's all very well to say that 'these things are known' but there isn't any broad consensus from the experts, or among the commentariat, or among the community at large. You can see that the things you want Government to do 'are known', just as the things that other people who want Government to do the direct opposite to you 'are known'. That's why they put €1m into getting together full-time experts under a part-time board of experts to issue expert advice.

FF and their partners were in office for most of the last 40 years. Populism pays. It also causes recessions. Now that FF have been burned by that they are seeking to behave in a relatively prudent manner. That's why the new FF, the Shinners, are doing so well. Those who espouse rational policies don't win elections.

I've no problem with the FAC. I've a problem with the general inertia that grips the State Sector and the inability of those within it to effect positive change. By any reasonable metric our State Sector is too small but given the appalling track record of absorbing money without improving services I've no confidence that a larger State sector will improve things. Appointing insiders to advisory boards, to give the same advice they gave when they were part of the permanent government, will achieve nothing. They can't see the wood for the trees. There is no 'Other Voices' in the mix. They have that voice echoing in their head, like the anti-Obama, whispering "No we can't".

There's some truth in the inertia thing, but one man's inertia is another man's broad consultation, consensus building, caution decision making when the stakes are very, very high. Our political system tends not to reward impetuous, dramatic changes of approach. Why would politicians go down this road, knowing well that they'll probably get kicked out next time round and things just get reversed back by populists (Irish Water).

 

[WolfeTone]

That's why they put €1m into getting together full-time experts under a part-time board of experts to issue expert advice.

there isn't any broad consensus from the experts,

That's the point.

 

[Purple]

Our political system tends not to reward impetuous, dramatic changes of approach. Why would politicians go down this road, knowing well that they'll probably get kicked out next time round and things just get reversed back by populists (Irish Water).

That's the crux of it. The vested interests can just wait the government out so nothing really improves or the law of diminishing marginal returns is there in spades. Those vested interests allow the Government to bolt on new stuff but they don't allow them to reform and streamline the structures that are already there. Companies like GE can acquire large organisations and consolidate their management and reporting structures so it is possible. We've just failed utterly to do it here. Irish Water is a great example in so many ways. It was an excellent idea, as are water charges, but when they looked to streamline and consolidate the Unions simply said 'No'.
The levels of over staffing due to duplication of process are staggering and Irish Water is tiny. The HSE still have much of the old Health Boards' structures in place and at a hospital level it's even more fractured. These things should have been sorted out decades ago. How many people have died, how many children with scoliosis have not been treated for year, because of the resources that have been wasted due to that structural inefficiency?

So, when a group of people who have spent their careers overseeing that level of systemic waste and organisational incompetence are gathered together to offer advice on how to improve things, given their track record of abysmal failure, I have to question their ability to do what's being asked of them.

 

[Purple]

one man's inertia is another man's broad consultation, consensus building, caution decision making when the stakes are very, very high.

You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time. (Abe Lincoln or John Lydgate, take your pick).
When everyone in every silo gets a veto nothing changes.

 

[Purple]

The Commission will advise Government. Government will make decisions.

It's not reasonable to expect elected politicians to do hugely detailed work on every possible issue.

Can we start a campaign to stop referring to 'The Government' as 'Government' and 'The Cabinet' as 'Cabinet'?
They won't advise 'Government' as that a concept. The with advise 'The Government' as that's a thing.
I'm sick of hearing talking heads on the radio and TV saying "That's a matter for Government". It may well be but unless they are having a conversation about general philosophy what they actually mean is "That's a matter for the Government".

Edit: I know I have a totally irrational fixation on this issue/non-issue.

 

[WolfeTone]

Irish Water is a great example in so many ways. It was an excellent idea, as are water charges,

Irish Water is a good idea, domestic water charges are a terrible, terrible idea. There is absolutely no basis for it. Households use water on a need basis, waste, washing, cooking food, etc... the health benefits are enormous. There is little wasted in domestic households, in general water is put to good use.

 

[Purple]

Irish Water is a good idea, domestic water charges are a terrible, terrible idea. There is absolutely no basis for it. Households use water on a need basis, waste, washing, cooking food, etc... the health benefits are enormous. There is little wasted in domestic households, in general water is put to good use.

Lets not go down that rabbit hole again!
I'm in favour of shifting taxation away from individual wealth creation and more onto wealth retention. I know your lot are against that sort of thing but I'm a bit of a socialist rather than a populist so...

 

[WolfeTone]

Lets not go down that rabbit hole again!

Fair enough.
I'm just relieved that I don't have to contend with the plethora of 'competitive' marketeering companies guised as service providers that would have emerged by now under the conditions of privatisating Irish Water. Offering '20% off for six months', '€200 cash-back' etc... all in the name providing an essential public resource.

I can think of their names already 'EirWater', 'Bord Uisce', 'SSE Uisce-icity' et al.

The water charges debacle was nothing more than a corporatised heist to syphon off a public resource cash cow for private profit.
If that's your idea of socialism, give me populism everytime.

 

[Purple]

You said;

Fair enough.

So why this complete nonsense?

I'm just relieved that I don't have to contend with the plethora of 'competitive' marketeering companies guised as service providers that would have emerged by now under the conditions of privatisating Irish Water. Offering '20% off for six months', '€200 cash-back' etc... all in the name providing an essential public resource.

I can think of their names already 'EirWater', 'Bord Uisce', 'SSE Uisce-icity' et al.

The water charges debacle was nothing more than a corporatised heist to syphon off a public resource cash cow for private profit.
If that's your idea of socialism, give me populism everytime.

Can we not go down that rabbit hole?