It's Official: we have the EU's highest paid and least productive civil servants

jimmmy

smccarrick wrote: »

If you go trimming the fat to the EU average in the civil service (on a per head of population basis), you would have just over 18,000 more civil servants. Ireland actually has the lowest number of civil servants per head of population in the whole OECD..

Many other countries have conscription for a period of time for young people. Most of the other EC countries spend more on defence / Nato forces etc. The fact is our public servants are the highest paid in Europe, if not the world.

smccarrick wrote: »

Far more pertinent- and instead of trying to lump the civil service, or even the public sector, as a whole- would be to focus on the elephant in the room- the HSE. It employs more people than the rest of the public sector combined, and at average salaries (despite what the media would have you believe) ~18% higher than the average salary elsewhere in the public sector.

There are shocking numbers of administrators pushing paper (or whatever it is they do to justify their existence). They are the people who give everyone else in the public sector a bad name...... The idea when all the old health boards were merged was that ~14,000 jobs could be eliminated (largely due to duplication of admin functions (notice a trend here?) and this would be implemented by non-replacement policies as people retired, contracts ended etc. Instead- guess what? 4 years later- not only were there not fewer people employed- there were 46,000 additional staff members- doing god only knows what.

The HSE is the elephant in the room.

yawn. Blame the HSE if you want ...it is only part of the public service. The fact that the whole of the public service is overpaid compared to all comparables , seems to have escaped you.

The_Conductor

jimmmy wrote: »

Many other countries have conscription for a period of time for young people. Most of the other EC countries spend more on defence / Nato forces etc. The fact is our public servants are the highest paid in Europe, if not the world.

Sorry whats your point? I think conscription serves a very useful purpose. What has this got to do with the current topic though?

Vis-a-vis defence expenditure- we spend a similar amount per head of population to several of the NATO member states. We have a smaller population of course.....

Our politicians are the highest paid in the world. Certain sectors of the public service are overpaid. The average figure is distorted by the HSE.

jimmmy wrote: »

yawn. Blame the HSE if you want ...it is only part of the public service.

Its not only part of the public service- in numbers its as large as the rest of the public sector combined. Yawn, back to you.

jimmmy wrote: »

The fact that the whole of the public service is overpaid compared to all comparables , seems to have escaped you.

How has it escaped me- you haven't provided any comparables? Some sectors of the public sector are overpaid- certainly- others are underpaid (when compared with the private sector). This is why its so difficult, even in the current climate, to keep IT, Legal staff, auditors or linguists- they can earn far better money elsewhere. Those that do stay- get slated for it....... Why bother......

thebman

I think its telling that people here keep going on about posting on boards from work etc... yet it is just after 5 now and almost all activity has ceased on the thread.

Some people are telling porkies I think :P

Not that it matters in the slightest as it isn't a relevant metric of work activity give you could be emailed updates and only read them from your inbox and reply if necessary.

I'm for intelligent cuts being made rather than just massive cuts for the sake of it and I'm for proper analysis of each department and reducing wages if necessary rather than blanket cuts.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... The fact that the whole of the public service is overpaid compared to all comparables , seems to have escaped you.

Fact?

If that's the case, some evidence would be relevant. Loose generalisations don't cut it.

The_Conductor

thebman wrote: »

I'm for intelligent cuts being made rather than just massive cuts for the sake of it and I'm for proper analysis of each department and reducing wages if necessary rather than blanket cuts.

Personally- I'd actually be in favour of blanket cuts- in lieu of bizarre levies etc. Get rid of all the weird levies that have been introduced in the 2 budgets- and give the entire public sector a 15-20% paycut. It would be fairest- it would be an accurate reflection of people's take home pay- probably knock vast swathes of the public sector wholly into the lower tax bracket, and silence the media in one foul swoop. In the same sweep- all those pensioners who got 'benchmarking' on their payment- would have to swallow the same pill as those incumbents to whom their pensions are relative to- and swallow a cut too. Seems fair to me.

Vis-a-vis the public sector and all those gold-plated pensions that Jimmmy likes to go on about- could someone please explain the distinction between pre and post 1995 people- and the different rights post 2002 and 2005. If pension rights were accurately explained- for someone employed say in 2005- in comparison to someone 10 years previous- it makes for a very sobering comparison altogether. People don't like this though.

P. Breathnach

smccarrick wrote: »

... Vis-a-vis the public sector and all those gold-plated pensions that Jimmmy likes to go on about- could someone please explain the distinction between pre and post 1995 people- and the different rights post 2002 and 2005. If pension rights were accurately explained- for someone employed say in 2005- in comparison to someone 10 years previous- it makes for a very sobering comparison altogether. People don't like this though.

The provision is worth the same to pre- and post-1995 recruits except for recent recruits who choose to retire before the age of 65, who will do a bit less well under the new arrangements.

There are differences in that post-1995 people pay full PRSI instead of a reduced rate (but are paid a little bit more, which covers the cost) and their pension is a combination of a Social Welfare Contributory OAP and a PS pension, whereas pre-1995 people receive just a PS pension. But in each case, the total pension for those who have completed 40 years of pensionable service adds up to 50% of final salary, and both categories receive a lump sum of 150% of final salary.

jimmmy

smccarrick wrote: »

Sorry whats your point? I think conscription serves a very useful purpose. What has this got to do with the current topic though?

It was not me who mentioned numbers employed in the public service. Conscription + higher figures in "the services" push up public figure numbers abroad.

Our public service pay etc etc , as in the O.P. , and confirmed by the source, are shameful.

P. Breathnach

smccarrick wrote: »

Personally- I'd actually be in favour of blanket cuts- in lieu of bizarre levies etc. Get rid of all the weird levies that have been introduced in the 2 budgets- and give the entire public sector a 15-20% paycut. It would be fairest- it would be an accurate reflection of people's take home pay- probably knock vast swathes of the public sector wholly into the lower tax bracket, and silence the media in one foul swoop. In the same sweep- all those pensioners who got 'benchmarking' on their payment- would have to swallow the same pill as those incumbents to whom their pensions are relative to- and swallow a cut too. Seems fair to me.

I don't entirely agree. I'd favour another round of benchmarking. It would almost certainly result in a large reduction in public sector pay, but it might not hit every category evenly. One grade might be cut by 15%, and another might be cut by 25%. I do agree with working the pensions levy into it. Under benchmarking 2, the value of job security and the pension package were supposedly reckoned into the calculations. I'd say that we should continue with that, and strike new rates that take those things into account.

Yes, I'm probably talking down my PS pension. That's the way things go. I can live with that.

I further believe that there is need for strategic review of all PS provision. There are places where arrangements can be considerably improved, and there may be things we can do without. There are also things that we need, and are failing to provide sufficiently well.

The_Conductor

jimmmy wrote: »

It was not me who mentioned numbers employed in the public service. Conscription + higher figures in "the services" push up public figure numbers abroad.

Our public service pay etc etc , as in the O.P. , and confirmed by the source, are shameful.

Conscripted recruits to the armed forces, or those who elect to take the public service alternate, are not included in the public sector numbers when reckoning- in Germany (I am not sure about other countries). They are 'netted' outside of either public or private sector numbers. They have no effect on headline numbers- or salaries (despite the miserly stipend they command).

Confirmed by what source? The original post delibertly obsfusciates civil servants and public sector employees- and while it does draw attention to the HSE in a very roundabout manner- its short on facts, unclear about what its quoting and its patently clear that the journalist was looking for a sensationalist article, without actually understanding what he was writing about. I have a copy of Anthony Foley's report myself. It doesn't pull any punches- and indeed is interesting reading and something the government really has to take onboard. However- its main message- has been twisted and misrepresented (most probably misunderstood) by the journalist- and then quoted by you and others as fact 'confirmed by the source'. If you want to quote a source- its not a good idea to use secondhand information- you are going to be perpetuating whatever twist someone puts on information- even if it wholly agrees with your own point of view.

halkar

Salaries of World Leaders
Country Title Name Approximate Salary
Bolivia President Evo Morales $21,600
Great Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown $375,222
France President Nicolas Sarkozy $346,000
Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel $318,000
Ireland Prime Minister Bertie Ahern $434,000
Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe $248,500
Russia President Vladimir Putin $81,000
Singapore Premier Lee Hsien Loong $2.05 million
United States President George W. Bush $400,000
United States Vice President Dick Cheney $208,575

Linky:
Top-Earning-World-Leaders

Maybe little old but numbers says it all. Brian Cowen makes more than Merkel, Brown and Sarkozy and almost as much as Obama.
More recent link

Recently Hungarian prime minister start working on symbolic 1forint salary.
Will we ever see the day Cowen working for 1 Euro. :rolleyes:

ionix5891

halkar wrote: »

Will we ever see the day Cowen working for 1 Euro. :rolleyes:

ahahahahahahahahaaaa

sigh

Mr. Presentable

OP, the civil service is only part of the PS. So I humbly request to take the blatant trolling lies out of your post title and replace them with the truth.

ionix5891

nipplenuts wrote: »

OP, the civil service is only part of the PS. So I humbly request to take the blatant trolling lies out of your post title and replace them with the truth.

did you even see the link and particularly the title in the national newspaper?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-civil-servants-have-best-deal-in-eu-study-shows-1749381.html

P. Breathnach

nipplenuts wrote: »

OP, the civil service is only part of the PS. So I humbly request to take the blatant trolling lies out of your post title and replace them with the truth.

To be fair (something that appears to be exceptional behaviour in any discussion here relating to the public service) the inaccuracy -- blatant trolling lies, if you prefer that terminolgy -- started in the Independent.

One or two people here seem to think it is not an issue.

The_Conductor

ionix5891 wrote: »

did you even see the link and particularly the title in the national newspaper?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-civil-servants-have-best-deal-in-eu-study-shows-1749381.html

Just because the Indo are trolling- doesn't make it accurate or fair to perpetuate their baiting......

ionix5891

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To be fair (something that appears to be exceptional behaviour in any discussion here relating to the public service) the inaccuracy -- blatant trolling lies, if you prefer that terminolgy -- started in the Independent.

One or two people here seem to think it is not an issue.

Look the independent obviously is looking for a grabbing headline which is more tabloid worthy

but they are onto something

and thats the fact that the sector of the economy that is not directly involved in the wealth producing activity in this country are getting paid more than comparable sectors in other countries, at a time when this country is gone down the gutter

smccarrick wrote: »

Just because the Indo are trolling- doesn't make it accurate or fair to perpetuate their baiting......

funny how the public sector employees posting here rather nitpick on the title than address the issue at hand

if this wasn't true it wouldn't be hard to disprove it right?

.

The_Conductor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To be fair (something that appears to be exceptional behaviour in any discussion here relating to the public service) the inaccuracy -- blatant trolling lies, if you prefer that terminolgy -- started in the Independent.

One or two people here seem to think it is not an issue.

Sigh- I knew it was a bad idea refreshing my 'ignore' list......

The_Conductor

ionix5891 wrote: »

Look the independent obviously is looking for a grabbing headline which is more tabloid worthy

but they are onto something

and thats the fact that the sector of the economy that is not directly involved in the wealth producing activity in this country are getting paid more than everywhere else at a time when this country is gone down the gutter




funny how the public sector employees posting here rather nitpick on the title than address the issue at hand

if this wasn't true it wouldn't be hard to disprove it right?

.

The opening sentence of the article is

Irish public-sector workers are better paid and are less productive than civil servants in other European Union countries, according to a study conducted by a leading Irish academic.

It would be equally as accurate to modify it to:

Irish public-sector workers are better paid and are less productive than civil servants in any European Union country, including Ireland, according to a study conducted by a leading Irish academic.

Of course- this does not suit the agenda that the Indo have......

The_Conductor

ionix5891 wrote: »

funny how the public sector employees posting here rather nitpick on the title than address the issue at hand

if this wasn't true it wouldn't be hard to disprove it right?

Its a misrepresentation of the facts- plain and simple.
With respect of public sector employees and pensioners posting in this thread- those who have identified themselves as such- are in agreement that there should be a cut in gross pay (in effect a reverse benchmarking) to be focused on a reflection of pension rights and job security and based on a similar exercise to the original scheme- whereby each grade would be accessed seperately.

The reason I'm not going into a hell of a lot of detail- is because I have done so several times previously in this forum and elsewhere- with the selfsame proponents arguing against me. Just google my posts in here. I don't see any point in repeating myself needlessly- as obviously it doesn't matter how much effort and time I put into my research- Jimmmy (and others) will never acknowledge that I might have a point. If valid information is researched and posted- it just gets ignored. Some people do not want to acknowledge that their concrete viewpoints, may in fact not have a basis in fact. I'm tired of it all.

Hasschu

Buying votes is a game that is as old as the Irish hills. The fact that they are overstaffed and over managed is related to their being overpaid. Once a government gets a sense of entitlement as great as the one our elected representatives have then they are compelled to keep the gravy train running. If the Taoiseach is worth $400,000 plus frills then every minor functionary in the CS is worth over $100,000 of course the "professionals" teachers, nurses et al are worth a lot more in their own minds. Until the ECB or IMF takes over the reckless spending will continue.

The_Conductor

Hasschu wrote: »

Buying votes is a game that is as old as the Irish hills. The fact that they are overstaffed and over managed is related to their being overpaid. Once a government gets a sense of entitlement as great as the one our elected representatives have then they are compelled to keep the gravy train running. If the Taoiseach is worth $400,000 plus frills then every minor functionary in the CS is worth over $100,000 of course the "professionals" teachers, nurses et al are worth a lot more in their own minds. Until the ECB or IMF takes over the reckless spending will continue.

Why are people insisting on delibertly mispresenting the public sector as the civil service. The civil service is a very small subsection of the Irish public sector- at present less than 8% of the public sector- and getting smaller by the day. It is the smallest civil service per head of population in the OECD. I have rephrased this in 3 differnent ways on this thread thus far- but people seem to prefer the snappy headline from the Irish Indo.

Certainly there are overpaid people in the civil service- however the most highly ranking officers in the civil service get paid less than 1/5 as much as do government appointees in the public sector (the Irish civil service is considered to be free from political interferance- though it took the misbehaviour of the 1980s to establish the the Civil Service Commission etc.)

Personally I would welcome the IMF into the country. The politicians do not have the guts to take the decisions that need to be made. Have not doubts though- yes the public sector at large would be gutted- but so too would our welfare state, our capital expenditure programmes and every single area of government expenditure. The recent government sponsored IMF report- did focus on the public sector (not the civil service), however, and very unusually- it contained a rebuttal of many of the myths perpetuated in the media- particularly about the civil service- and it also strayed into territory such as our welfare state. Needless to say- the report has *not* been published.

capsubsidy.com

smccarrick wrote: »

Why are people insisting on delibertly mispresenting the public sector as the civil service. The civil service is a very small subsection of the Irish public sector- at present less than 8% of the public sector- and getting smaller by the day. It is the smallest civil service per head of population in the OECD. I have rephrased this in 3 differnent ways on this thread thus far- but people seem to prefer the snappy headline from the Irish Indo.

Reading the CS wikipedia page it seems the categorization of CS seems very arbitary between countries.

In any case, can we move away from the CS/PS discussion? Its going nowhere.

The real discussion should be what the tax payers are paying for and if they are getting good value for money for it.

P. Breathnach

capsubsidy.com wrote: »

Reading the CS wikipedia page it seems the categorization of CS seems very arbitary between countries.

In any case, can we move away from the CS/PS discussion? Its going nowhere.

The real discussion should be what the tax payers are paying for and if they are getting good value for money for it.

Read the thread title, and check the link in the original post. Both refer to the Civil Service. If you want a discussion of public service pay and productivity (yet another one), than have it. But it's not fair to pillory the Civil Service for any perceived inefficiencies in the HSE, or schools, or policing, or a range of other public service activities.

I would give more weight to the opinions of critics who seemed to have regard for truth and accuracy, and who adduced evidence rather than rhetoric in support of their arguments.

capsubsidy.com

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I would give more weight to the opinions of critics who seemed to have regard for truth and accuracy, and who adduced evidence rather than rhetoric in support of their arguments.

That's fair enough.

capsubsidy.com

P. Breathnach wrote: »

perceived inefficiencies in the HSE

Perceived? Are you kidding me?

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

perceived inefficiencies in the HSE

:D:D always good for a laugh

If the economic situation was not so serious in this little country, I would laugh instead of just grin at all these serving and retired public servants trying to justify what is arguably the most overpaid public service in the world.

P. Breathnach

capsubsidy.com wrote: »

Perceived? Are you kidding me?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perceived Definition 1b comes closest to the sense in which I was using the word. That does not mean that I deny the possibility that there are inefficiencies in the HSE.

It is perceived inefficiency unless and until some evidence is adduced.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

:D:D always good for a laugh

If the economic situation was not so serious in this little country, I would laugh instead of just grin at all these serving and retired public servants trying to justify what is arguably the most overpaid public service in the world.

I perceive that you are riding on somebody else's coat-tails again, jimmmy.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I perceive that you are riding on somebody else's coat-tails again, jimmmy.

lol lol If agreeing with another poster at an incredible statement from you is " riding on somebody else's coat-tails ", I do not mind at all.



please answer the question below, which you have still not answered :


Quote:
Originally Posted by ionix5891
does the taxpayer not have the right to point out bloat and/or demand better value for money?

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionix5891
does the taxpayer not have the right to point out bloat and/or demand better value for money?

When did you stop beating your wife?

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

When did you stop beating your wife?

You seem to have a fixation with "wifebeating". Indeed it is a subject you have mentioned before , and nobody else has ever even hinted at the subject, or responded to you about same. I never mentioned if I had a wife, husband or partner, and as far as I know nobody else did either. I suggest its a little bit distasteful.

oscarBravo

jimmmy wrote: »

please answer the question below, which you have still not answered

When you have a track record of engaging earnestly and genuinely in discussions, including answering every question that's asked of you and taking on board points that are made in rebuttal of yours, you can start badgering people to answer your questions. Until then, don't. Consider this a warning.

jimmmy

I have taken on board other peoples points, and I consider them very valuable. Please can you tell me what question I did not answer , and I will try to answer it. Thanks for the warning; I will not "badger" P.Breathnach to answer that question again.

oscarBravo

jimmmy wrote: »

I have taken on board other peoples points, and I consider them very valuable.

Excellent - we can assume that you won't be mixing up the civil and public services again, then.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionix5891
does the taxpayer not have the right to point out bloat and/or demand better value for money?

Jimmmy, of course the taxpayer has the right to demand value for money for the services they pay for......but that does not mean that simply cutting pay or firing a load of public sector workers will result in value for money...I think the history around An Bord Snip in the 1980s would show that

such moves are liekly to result in a reduction in services rather than any improvement in value for money

what's required in the public sector above all is reform of its structures and systems...the most obvious being the bizarre restructuring of the health Boards into the HSE without a single redundancy at management level. Given the numbers and money going into it needs to be tackled seriously.

Further, real change is required across the Public Sector with regard to the management of poor performing staff, up to and including being fired. More power needs to be in the hands of managers (as well as support from HR etc) to deal with such problems.

PMDS needs to be refined and properly implemented

There are a number of issues with the payments, expenses etc to politicians which needs to be reformed.

with regard to pay levels we have previously agreed that the level of increases was mainly down to actions of politicans, notably Bertie Ahern. His "throw money at everyone to keep them happy" approach has harmed Ireland as the current situation shows.

capsubsidy.com

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is perceived inefficiency unless and until some evidence is adduced.

There is plenty evidence available, that you are not aware of any, can only be described as willful ignorance.

P. Breathnach

capsubsidy.com wrote: »

There is plenty evidence available, that you are not aware of any, can only be described as willful ignorance.

In a debate, the onus is on any person making a claim to provide the backup evidence.

Those who consistently attack the public service on this forum adduce very little evidence in support of their positions.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Those who consistently attack the public service on this forum adduce very little evidence in support of their positions.

Time and time again different surveys and reports have been produced to show how overpaid it is, for example.....probably the highest paid in the world. Yet you do not take on board any of this evidence and think pay needs to be cut substantially, considering Irelands economic situation ?

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Time and time again different surveys and reports have been produced to show how overpaid it is, for example.....probably the highest paid in the world.

Time and again the same few things are posted or linked, some of which are badly-written newspaper pieces.

Yet you do not take on board any of this evidence and think pay needs to be cut substantially, considering Irelands economic situation ?

Clearly you don't read what I say. Several times you have attempted to represent my position, and done it incorrectly.

ionix5891

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In a debate, the onus is on any person making a claim to provide the backup evidence.

Those who consistently attack the public service on this forum adduce very little evidence in support of their positions.

little evidence??!!

how about this thread at the top of the politics forum?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055189047

UK 2-3 months to process a naturalization application
Ireland 3+ years

why??? even the EU and other TD's keep asking this question of the Justice minister about bloat in his dept and questioning the length of time being taken

and thats only 1 section of 20-30 people within the DOJ & FA...

Riskymove

ionix5891 wrote: »

little evidence??!!

how about this thread at the top of the politics forum?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055189047

UK 2-3 months to process a naturalization application
Ireland 3+ years

why??? even the EU and other TD's keep asking this question of the Justice minister about bloat in his dept and questioning the length of time being taken

and thats only 1 section of 20-30 people within the DOJ & FA...

just out of interest is there evidence that the cause of the problem is incompetent or inefficient staff?

could there be other reasons for this state of affairs?

ionix5891

Riskymove wrote: »

just out of interest is there evidence that the cause of the problem is incompetent or inefficient staff?

could there be other reasons for this state of affairs?

the same question gets asked of the minister often, but he just changes the subject

how would you explain similar processes being an order of magnitude faster in other EU countries? apparantely the process involves checking all documentation is in place and requesting a report from gardai hq and social welfare report to ensure the person is of good character and has not milked the state

the gardai report takes up to 6 months, last i checked gardai weren't in the private sector, so if they try to shift the blame then it falls onto another public sector body...

P. Breathnach

ionix5891 wrote: »

little evidence??!!

how about this thread at the top of the politics forum?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055189047
...

That's not clear evidence of anything much: possibly political decisions to go a certain way; possibly an understaffed section; possibly cumbersome procedures; possibly bloody-minded individuals; possibly legal complications...

Yes, it looks bad on the surface, but it is not clear why.

People have jumped on me for mentioning "perceived inefficiencies in the HSE". If I want to write of inefficiencies in the HSE without the "perceived" qualification, I would see it as incumbent on me to cite evidence. It's a simple as that. I didn't have evidence conveniently to hand, and it wasn't germane to what I was saying to develop that point, as it was little more than an aside.

capsubsidy.com

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In a debate, the onus is on any person making a claim to provide the backup evidence.

OECD Economic Survey Ireland 2008

very obscure and probably too badly written for you though.

Riskymove

ionix5891 wrote: »

the gardai report takes up to 6 months, last i checked gardai weren't in the private sector, so if they try to shift the blame then it falls onto another public sector body...

I thought it may be something like that

again i think it comes down to structures and reform, if the gardai spent more time on paperwork like this, the process would likely be speeded up but then the headlines would be about gardai time wasted when they should be on the street etc

things liek this would be helped out by civilianisation of many garda roles

Riskymove

capsubsidy.com wrote: »

OECD Economic Survey Ireland 2008

very obscure and probably too badly written for you though.

Funnily enough if that OECD report is along usual lines it will state that we should be looking for more efficiency (i.e. getting more from what we are putting in) in the public sector and will not be pushing for reduction in funding levels

The OECD Review of the Public Sector in ireland published last year may also be of interest if you are convinvced by OECD publications. It states that Ireland gets great value form money form the Civil Service which performs relatively well and is comparitively small in numbers!!

Riskymove

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that this report was carried out by a Public Servant?;)

given the logic on this thread he must be overpaid, under productive and incompetent!! Therefore the report cannot be trusted!!:pac:

P. Breathnach

capsubsidy.com wrote: »

OECD Economic Survey Ireland 2008

In support of what claim are you citing this?

very obscure and probably too badly written for you though.

It's written in temperate language, something of which I approve. It has also been overtaken by events, and is out of date already.

Do you have a problem with my writing style?

capsubsidy.com

Riskymove wrote: »

The OECD Review of the Public Sector in ireland published last year may also be of interest if you are convinvced by OECD publications. It states that Ireland gets great value form money form the Civil Service which performs relatively well and is comparitively small in numbers!!

I take it you haven't read it then.

http://www.bettergov.ie/index.asp?locID=220&docID=-1

What it said was the we had a relatively low PS spend relative to our GDP in 2005. 34.4% average of GDP in the middle of our boom. With our current government spend and current GDP that figure is now 44.5%, which is 2% higher than OECD average!

capsubsidy.com

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In support of what claim are you citing this?

This is one of the reports of which you are/were willfully ignorant.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It has also been overtaken by events, and is out of date already.

The HSE has become efficient since 2008? Do you have anything to support that claim?