RTE presenters earnings

[Purple]

Why?
What's so special about them?

If you can't figure out on your own why the people we elect to run the country and spent the billions of euro that we give them shouldn't be well paid then there is really no point in anyone else trying to explain it to you.

I would suggest that you take a half hour in a quiet room and have a good hard think about it.

 

[z107]

If you can't figure out on your own why the people we elect to run the country and spent the billions of euro that we give them shouldn't be well paid then there is really no point in anyone else trying to explain it to you.

You are equating income with ability. (I didn't elect these people, so please don't generalise.)

I would suggest that you take a half hour in a quiet room and have a good hard think about it.

I couldn't care less what you suggest I do.

 

[Purple]

You are equating income with ability. (I didn't elect these people, so please don't generalise.)

Do you expect people who are high achievers in their private lives (Michael McDowell was a barrister, Rauiri Quinn had/has an architectural firm, Brian Lenehan was a barrister, Liz O'Donnell was a university lecturer etc) to give up well paid and secure jobs to work much longer hours where their whole lives and the lives of their families are fair game to any and all in the media, where they have at most 5 years job security and do all that for the average industrial wage?
We'd really get the best and the brightest if that happened, wouldn't we?
Don't start with that "I didn't elect these people" rubbish; you have an equal voice to every other adult citizen of this country. What alternative would you suggest to the present system?

 

[Geegee]

where they have at most 5 years job security

Full pension after three years regardless of performance when in office.

What alternative would you suggest to the present system?

One where politicians were truly accountable and would face personal ruin if they did not perform their duties properly or made the wrong decision. if this was the case there just might be less money squandered and a little bit more diligence amongst our cosseted politicians. What sanction do they face at present? Look at recently disgraced politicians - their pensions cannot even be withheld.
Look at "Contrary Mary" and the Telecom Eireann debacle where the company responsible for the flotation was paid on a sliding scale linked to the share price!! What sanction was taken here??? The voting public did what they could and didn't re-elect her. Is she now down on her luck and struggling to make ends meet? On the contrary, she was rewarded with the appointment as leader of the Senate - PREPOSTEROUS!

 

[michaelm]

So let me get this straight michaelm, you don't want the political parties to be funded by business donations and you don't want them to be funded by the taxpayer either.
You do want them to be funded by their members only.

You haven't quite got it straight Purple. What annoys me is the generous state funding of political parties. This was hugely increased following the Flood tribunal revelations; the idea being that donations from business had been linked to political corruption and would be voluntarily curtailed by the parties and that state funding would fill the gap. No sooner had they pocketed the increased state funding they are back out with their cap to business and you can even get a breakfast with a Minister for around €4k (probably tax deductible too). I am happy for the parties to be funded by their members, business and private donations so long as it's transparent but not state funded. Currently the parties have the best of all worlds.

It's good to see people with well thought out strong views on how the system should work though so good luck with it if you decide to launch a national campaign..

Indeed. You can put your bigger brain back in its jar now.

 

[z107]

Don't start with that "I didn't elect these people" rubbish; you have an equal voice to every other adult citizen of this country. What alternative would you suggest to the present system?

The people who are currently governing this country are the winners of a popularity contest. At face value, this seems fair enough. The people choose who they would like to see running the country, democracy and all that. However, here's the reality.

First of all, how is the voting done?
Well most people have the right to vote. Out of those people, the split probably goes something like this:

1. Many won't bother voting.
2. More will vote the same way as parents & peers.
3. Others will vote because of a politicians charisma or photo.
4. A few like to back a winner and will vote for the most popular person or party.
5. Finally, a tiny minority will read the manefestos and make an informed decision (out of a limited choice).

Remember that because it is a popularity contest, the person with the best marketing has the best chances of winning, regardless of suitability.

This is the current system. To me, it seems to be designed to keep people in power, while giving the illusion that people have some sort of choice.

Here's an example of how the system is flawed. Let's pretend that your are unfortunate enough to have to undergo heart surgery. You get to pick the surgeon. Who would you like?

a. The best cardiologist in the country
b. The latest winner of big brother.

I find it hard to think of a system that's worse. Maybe even a dictatorship would be better.

Back to the point of politicians' remuneration.

We'd really get the best and the brightest if that happened, wouldn't we?

We might be in danger of getting people who actually care about their jobs, and not about their pay packet.
The best and brightest aren't necessarily so driven by money and greed either. Many people leave high paying professions to seek a devotion, or simply do something they have a passion for.

I've found in my experience as an employer, that people driven by a desire for job satisfaction - people who enjoy their jobs, are far more productive than people who count the hours to pay day. By allowing TDs to take so much money from us, we are encouraging totally the wrong calliber of individual.

Another point, consider how much money these people are taking from us. Do they really need this amount of money? How many starving people could this feed? How many new businesses could get a chance with this funding? etc, etc...

 

[Purple]

Geegee wrote:
"Full pension after three years regardless of performance when in office."
Is that the case if you are a TD or do you have to be a minister? I also thought that the ministerial pension started after 3 years service but didn't max out 'till they have served for a good few years.
I agree that politicians who are corrupt of screw up should be kicked out but Michael Lowry got re-elected by the people of Tipperary, which does back up my contention that the people that our TD's represent are just the same.

michaelm wrote:
"Indeed. You can put your bigger brain back in its jar now."

Ok, I was a bit rude there, good response though, just the right tone of contempt.

 

[RainyDay]

The people who are currently governing this country are the winners of a popularity contest. At face value, this seems fair enough. The people choose who they would like to see running the country, democracy and all that. However, here's the reality.

First of all, how is the voting done?
Well most people have the right to vote. Out of those people, the split probably goes something like this:

1. Many won't bother voting.
2. More will vote the same way as parents & peers.
3. Others will vote because of a politicians charisma or photo.
4. A few like to back a winner and will vote for the most popular person or party.
5. Finally, a tiny minority will read the manefestos and make an informed decision (out of a limited choice).

Remember that because it is a popularity contest, the person with the best marketing has the best chances of winning, regardless of suitability.

This is the current system. To me, it seems to be designed to keep people in power, while giving the illusion that people have some sort of choice.

Here's an example of how the system is flawed. Let's pretend that your are unfortunate enough to have to undergo heart surgery. You get to pick the surgeon. Who would you like?

a. The best cardiologist in the country
b. The latest winner of big brother.

I find it hard to think of a system that's worse. Maybe even a dictatorship would be better.

You didn't answer the question you were asked. You were asked "What alternative would you suggest to the present system?" but you spent half a page expanding on your broad-brush criticisms of the current system. Please do suggest your alternative models?

 

[z107]

You didn't answer the question you were asked.

Maybe I should enter into politics myself!

To answer the question, how about a system whereby people study to run a department?

For example, the minister for the department of transport would have had to have studied transportation theory. The syllabus could include most efficient models, best use of public money etc. A few candidates could apply for the post every year. They could spend a few years in the ranks, and the most competant person gets elected, from their peers (a bit like the way Catholic church elects Popes)

What we would end up with is a super-efficient department, where people understand the underlying principles of what they are trying to achieve. It is what they were trained to do.

If someone wants to become a minister, they'll have to study for it (like everyone else), and be on the average national industrial wage when they qualify. This would ensure that candidates are in it because they like the job, rather than because they want to line their own, or someone else's pockets.

Everyone is free to become a minister. People don't have to spend €€€s on popularity contests. (Which can be a bit of a drawback if you haven't got the money)

 

[RainyDay]

Maybe I should enter into politics myself!

And would you do it for the average industrial wage? Seriously, would you spend a few years serving your time as a councillor, spending most of your evenings going to residents meetings about halting sites and planning permissions and potholes? Spending most of your weekends canvassing? Not seeing your family for the 6 months before an election as you'll be out every evening/weekend canvassing or fundraising? Schmoozing your party colleagues to ensure that you get selected as the next Dail candidate, and finding that your party HQ has parachuted a high-profile media personality in to run with you.

To answer the question, how about a system whereby people study to run a department?

For example, the minister for the department of transport would have had to have studied transportation theory. The syllabus could include most efficient models, best use of public money etc. A few candidates could apply for the post every year. They could spend a few years in the ranks, and the most competant person gets elected, from their peers (a bit like the way Catholic church elects Popes)

What we would end up with is a super-efficient department, where people understand the underlying principles of what they are trying to achieve. It is what they were trained to do.

This certainly isn't how large businesses work today, and given that you seem to hold up private enterprises as the ideal model for the public service, I'm not sure why you want to deviate on this point. Senior managers & directors change departments, functions, companies and industries with amazing regularity, certainly every 3 years or so. Why would you expect a politician to build expertise in a single functional area?

Everyone is free to become a minister. People don't have to spend €€€s on popularity contests. (Which can be a bit of a drawback if you haven't got the money)

Everybody is free to become a Minister today. But you still haven't suggested any real alternative to our electoral system of which you were so critical earlier on. Do you really have any alternative system to offer?

 

[z107]

And would you do it for the average industrial wage?

Yes. If it's a job I wanted to do. With your reasoning, there would be no teachers, nurses, priests etc.

Seriously, would you spend a few years serving your time as a councillor, spending most of your evenings going to residents meetings about halting sites and planning permissions and potholes? Spending most of your weekends canvassing? Not seeing your family for the 6 months before an election as you'll be out every evening/weekend canvassing or fundraising? Schmoozing your party colleagues to ensure that you get selected as the next Dail candidate, and finding that your party HQ has parachuted a high-profile media personality in to run with you.

(ahh - the poor dears!) I do similar anyway. I work every hour God sends for little immediate return - certainly for less than the average industrial wage. Do you think political candidates are unique in their drive to accomplish desires?

What I do now is frought with risk. I could easily be put out of business. A large competitor could enter the market tomorrow.

This certainly isn't how large businesses work today, and given that you seem to hold up private enterprises as the ideal model for the public service, I'm not sure why you want to deviate on this point.

I didn't actually suggest this that private enterprise is an ideal model for the public service. Even if I did, what's wrong with deviating? - throwing a few ideas on the table? I'm sure my suggestions have lots of flaws and problems, but after all, they are just that - ideas and suggestions.

Why would you expect a politician to build expertise in a single functional area?

Well why not? - Doesn't specialisation sound like a good idea?

Everybody is free to become a Minister today. But you still haven't suggested any real alternative to our electoral system of which you were so critical earlier on. Do you really have any alternative system to offer?

No. Anyone is free who has the marketing money to become a minister today. If you haven't got the cash you can still run, of course, but you're kidding yourself.

I spent ages describing an alternative system in my previous post. To recap:

People study for specific posts. Candidates aren't elected to participate in the study, anyone can sign up. The head of departments are chosen by their peers (ie, fellow students).

 

[Gordanus]

Maybe the average industrial wage is too much?



BTW, Does anyone know what it is? I know I spent a long time looking incredulously at the amount whenever it cropped up in newspapers, as it was always a hell of a lot more than I earned.

 

[z107]

I thought it was about €19000.
I just googled it, and according to the CSO, it's actually €27000.

[broken link removed]

 

[RainyDay]

Oh come on, umop3p!sdn. Let's bring some reality to the debate. I'm not going to go through a line-by-line answer to your flawed arguements as that tends to lose other parties. But let me highlight some key points;

- Teachers & nurses beat the average industrial wage hands down.
- No-one is asking for sympathy for politicians. They choose their career and their lifestyle. However, if you reduce TD/Minister's salary to the average industrial wage, you will wipe out any interest in politics as a career, or worse still, you will encourange an environment of kickbacks & corruption to get a decent income. As already pointed out, the only TD's who currently operate that model are Joe Higgins & the SF TD's - are these they guys or kinds of guys you want to see sitting at the cabinet table.
- Your 'specialisation' arguement makes little sense. What happens if I specialise in Health Management and I've done my 5 years as Minister for Health - Where do I go from there? The civil servants, the hospital staff & the HSE are the specialists and the experts - The Minister doesn't need to be an expert. And of course, if he did, he'd have to be an expert in every branch of medicine, in nursing, in paramedic services, in physiotherapy, in speech therapy and in every other service provided by the Dept. It's a ludicrous idea.
- I don't quite understand your "People study for specific posts. Candidates aren't elected to participate in the study, anyone can sign up. The head of departments are chosen by their peers (ie, fellow students)" proposal. Are you suggesting that we no longer have one-man, one-vote elections? Are you trying to eliminate the principle of universal suffrage for which people have laid down their lives in the past? Are you suggesting that cabinet ministers are appointed only by a self-selecting group who have a vested interest in replacing that particular cabinet minister so they can get the job.

You really haven't proposed any half-sensible alternative to the present system. It's certainly not perfect, but please do try to come up with something better, rather than just non-constructive slagging.

 

[Purple]

Good man Rainy, I haven't the time or energy to keep this one going but you are making the same points I would make. The only difference is that your points are more logical don't ramble as much.

 

[z107]

I've done my 5 years as Minister for Health - Where do I go from there?

This is quite a valid point, one that I hadn't thought of. I suppose they could become the oracle of the department. Of course, if they are good enough they could be minister for health for the rest of their career. Why limit it to 5 years? None of that nonsense of changing governments.

The reason for my criticism of the current system was to raise awareness of it's obvious flaws. I would consider this constructive. Unless you know what's wrong with something, you'll never get it right.

To clarify, I am suggesting we scrap the one man one vote principle. Just because people died for it, doesn't mean it has to be good. My suggestion is fairer. Everyone gets a crack at the chief whip.

 

[Purple]

To clarify, I am suggesting we scrap the one man one vote principle. Just because people died for it, doesn't mean it has to be good. My suggestion is fairer. Everyone gets a crack at the chief whip.

Hi umop£p!sdn,
If there is no input from the general public then the state and it's institutions will become detached from the people and turn into a self-serving dictatorship.
At the moment the people through the constitution are sovereign in this country and they elect the government. If the government is sovereign and not accountable to the people what is to stop them from changing the rules to turn the institutions of state into hereditary closed shops?
It sounds a bit like a one party state like say...The Soviet Union?

 

[ubiquitous]

Just for the record, contributions to political parties are NOT tax-deductible in any circumstances.

 

[RainyDay]

[broken link removed] justifies the entire licence fee on its own. Superb work which will improve the lives of many, many people.