- May 5, 2010
So then why make a blaket statement to abolish them all without knowing the facts?Not going to tell you which ones as I, while I may believe they do nothing, I don't have all the facts on which to make a decision.
Eminently sensible suggestion that I've been making for some time. However the Government refuse to do this. The McCarthy report makes a start... but it's only a start.I'd like to think we could go through each and every one of them to see why it exists and to explore whether its function is necessary or whether it can be better carried out through another form.
Glad to hear it.Where redundancies or wage cuts (I'm mainly thinking of management level wages here) are found, I'd do it. I wouldn't however dismantle useful or essential services just to satisfy a grudge though.
Possibly and yes. I thought you were talking about rent allowance for those on social welfare.Aren't we still paying inflated rents to these large developers though? I know we have entered into contracts but surely its justifiable to renegotiate given the current climate.
This is already being done. Every sector of the public service have had cuts in their budgets and redundancies. There is a perception that "nothing is being done" but obviously in order to maintain services reform and effieiencies such as the above are already being made. However cuts across the board often lead to essential staff being cut and more services having to be outsourced, often at greater cost.After that, I'd be looking into contracts for services and trying to decimate the costs.
My agency has made significant reforms in an attempt to deliver services with reduced budgets and staff. This includes voluntary extra unpaid working hours, forgoing some annual leave, taking on the work or staff that have been laid off and renegotiating and reviewing all contracts for services that are coming up for renewal. It would not be possible for us to continue to deliver services without reform. And all this was agreed without fuss or whinging and without a union in sight, but of course these kind of examples are never reported in the anti-PS media.
Again, glad to hear it. Unfortunately though many do believe what they read in the anti-PS media and often make outrageous generalisations about the PS.At the end of the day, I don't know of any concrete examples because all I have to go on really is stories from the rag (sorry, independent), and I'm not dumb enough to believe everything I'm told.
Maybe some parts of the PS did (the public service comprises numerous agencies and departments and does not all act as one) but, from my experience, given the very tight public procurement rules that I am obliged to follow and the various audits it is very difficult to find examples of such inflated contracts. However businesses are generally falling overthemselves to get our business now so costs are coming down (although some are going up).Im basically working off the belief that the state tied itself into inflated contracts all over the place (often just the way it was and not slating ps) and that those should be re-examined in the light of our current situation.
If you cut across the board rather than targetted cuts, essential staff are lost. I know from experience.I have not called for cutting necessary staff so, while I appreciate that I am adding a substantial workload, I firmly believe that if its worth doing that it should be done by hook or by crook.
Yes, the estimated 5-10bn paid to welfare fraudsters could be tackled.You'll note that I haven't pretended to be some sort of wizard with all the answers as again I am working off the premise that the social welfare system could be made more fit for purpose (get people over a bad, temporary spell - not a way of life, expect in exceptional circumstances).
Eh, yes the can. Substantial fines for a start. Could also lead to countries deciding not to trade with us or even trade sanctions.The Eu aren't going to pay the bills so sod EU law - there's nothing they can do to stop it without looking like fools.
I agree with impetus measures such as reducing VAT if can be reasonably determined that there would be a net gain to the economy. But it's a risk; the UK slashed VAT and it had little effect, apart from NI border areas. If people have little money and the future is uncertain, they won't necessarily start spending just because VAT is reduced.Frankly, this is the golden question. It's have to be enough to have an impact but not so much as to create a void once its gone. If it were workable I'd cut all the VAT for first 6 months, 50% of the VAT for next 6 months.
Do it, promote it and get the tourists in while also getting Irish people spending and off the dole. (Maybe double the airport tax for the year to make up a few quid, given that we are now a "cheap" place to visit...)
If banks won't lend, at worse businesses will collapse, at best growth will stagnate. Who is going to sell a house for 50 quid when they can hold on to in the hope prices will rise? Most people cannot afford to buy houses without mortgages.If banks aren't lending then the market value will reflect what people have in their pockets. Could be 50 quid but so what if the house needs some work and it gets people employed.
And whats wrong with someone living mortgage free?
With who? Not all private sector workers or companies are unionised. Do you seriously think you will get a wage agreement with private sector unions to reduce wages?Wage agreements. Nobody is insisting that you pay less or more but I am saying that the state should work itself into a position where it can pay less than the current rates.
Yes, except we are more of an export driven economy. If all countries start doing that it will more adversly affect Irish companies and cause job loses. It would also affect our reputation and and the last thing we want to do is stifel foreign investment.Don't France break up contracts where possible? Can't we do the same?
So long as rent allowance covers the rent, then of course. My worry would be that they would reduce rent allowance to say 500 and then (as we enter recovery) rent would start going up.Moved house last month. Could hammer everybody on rent, right the way down to about 700/month. Reason being that the rent allowance in the area is 700/month. Its not fair to have RA driving MY rent up.
As I understand it its a temporary measure to encourage and foster competition and is a normal practice when deregulation is introduced.Correct. And every other company doing electricity sells themselves as x% cheaper than the ESB. A con by the way as I believe some charge different standing charges.