Taoiseach urged to give O'Leary spot in Cabinet

Dannyboy83

BUSINESS giants such as Michael O'Leary should be immediately drafted into the Cabinet to spearhead the country's economic recovery, a leading academic claimed yesterday. Addressing the annual summit of the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association (ISME), University of Limerick's founding president Dr Ed Walsh said the Government had the opportunity to bring heavy-weight talent into the Cabinet within weeks.
"Taoiseach Brian Cowen has three Senate seats to fill in December and the country does not need another three county councillors in the there," Dr Walsh proclaimed to applause from the 350-strong audience.
Pointing to the "shortage of talent in the Cabinet", Dr Walsh urged the Taoiseach to appoint "distinguished people" such as Ryanair boss Mr O'Leary and Intel Ireland boss Jim O'Hara to the vacant Senate seats and then to the front benches.
"Bringing in people like that would send a real signal," Dr Walsh added.
A show of hands showed almost universal support for Mr O'Leary's ascent to the cabinet table.

Convince
However, the Ryanair boss himself could be harder to convince after he recently proclaimed: "I'm not a politician, thankfully, and will never be a politician."
Other top business talent mooted for a potential cabinet spot included departing National Treasury Management Agency boss Michael Somers, Intel Ireland boss Jim O'Hara and IFSC founder Dermot Desmond.
Yesterday's summit also saw the ISME call on the Government to "abolish" social partnership in favour of a National Representation Forum that would include the small business lobby group, the Central Bank and the ESRI.
"It would be totally different from social partnership because small businesses that aren't being consulted or considered would now actually have a voice," ISME chairwoman Eilish Quinlan said.
"The main function would be to find a path to recovery."
Banks also came under fire at the conference.
Cooley Distillery boss John Teeling dubbed Bank of Ireland's Mark Cunningham 'Kamikaze Cunningham' for taking to the podium to defend the bank's lending to small businesses.
"If he stands up here and tells you he's lending, shoot him," the whiskey boss said.

What is your opinion on this?


My opinion is fairly simple:
1) It would be pointless bringing O'Leary into the current government, they are far too corrupt and far too resistant to change for him to have any real effect. They share mutual hatred of each other. People will never support this government again. He would have to be brought into a new government to make it work.


2) If the McCarthy report was largely ignored, what would be the advantage of O'Leary? O'Leary is able to do what he does because he runs a private sector company as a dictatorship.
If he was given free reign, I'm sure he could do some good. When massively overpaid teachers are having pre-emptive strikes, its hard to imagine his leadership style being of any use at all. You simply cannot reform.


3) In Ireland, Private sector company employees can simply be fired if they resist change and rewarded for productivity, so there is a carrot and stick.
In Ireland, there is really no stick for the public sector, just the carrot.
This would make O'Leary ineffective.
The system needs to be changed before it can be reformed.



What are your thoughts?

dresden8

If you want to pay a fiver each time a traffic light turns green, he's your man.

glynn888

get mick in quick ,appoint him to dept of health , lots of work to be done , filthy hospitals , beard ridden unions , staff who dont give a dam and who think the state owes them a fantastic living, lots of decent hard working people out there now who are willing to take jobs from all these wasters in the public service, com on mick and get sacking.
TO OWN FOREIGN VILLAS IS NOT A RIGHT YOU KNOW.

sceptre

Dannyboy83, please include a link to the article as well as attribution of who wrote it. (yes, I can see it's from the Irish Indo but it's required as a basic courtesy any time an article is used)


My opinion, as it always is of Ed Walsh, is that he's got a tendency to say controversial things and likes to say them. I'm not entirely sure that it's not a case of entirely believing them rather than still being a fan of being the bad boy on the block. He's a journalist's orgasm-inducing-quote-wetdream though, guaranteed to throw out something controversial wherever he goes.

As for the suggestion? There's precedent for bringing in a government-appointed senator as a minister but O'Leary can offer exactly what? And no, "something different and fresh" isn't good enough and neither is "business experience". Ed's after a headline again and given that any time I've dropped a story on him into print I've included the line "controversial as always", who can blame the journalist for taking it - he's always handy for filling the corner of page 5 or thereabouts.

NewDubliner

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What is your opinion on this?

Totally loopy idea. he's not a politician, he's a businessman. He'd have no head for compromise, negotiation or for non-financial goals that are the business of government. He's intelligent enough to know that.

I'd like to put him in charge of NAMA or Anglo Irish

Dannyboy83

sceptre wrote: »

Dannyboy83, please include a link to the article as well as attribution of who wrote it. (yes, I can see it's from the Irish Indo but it's required as a basic courtesy any time an article is used)

Apologies, thought I had the link included.
Thanks

Taxipete29

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

3) In Ireland, Private sector company employees can simply be fired if they resist change and rewarded for productivity, so there is a carrot and stick.
In Ireland, there is really no stick for the public sector, just the carrot.
This would make O'Leary ineffective.
The system needs to be changed before it can be reformed.

First off reform is change so that statement is incorrect.

Secondly it is not that easy to fire someone in any sector in this country. The Labour laws apply across the board so it really depends on your contract, but anyone who is not on a probationary or fixed term contract is quite difficult to get rid of

Sleepy

Taxipete29 wrote: »

First off reform is change so that statement is incorrect.

Secondly it is not that easy to fire someone in any sector in this country. The Labour laws apply across the board so it really depends on your contract, but anyone who is not on a probationary or fixed term contract is quite difficult to get rid of

I'd have thought 'gross incompetence' would be a sackable offense for anyone? Would probably work quite well on the teachers as most of those driving the strike are the gombeens sitting waiting for a pension rather than talented teachers.

dvpower

I think he already has a full time job.

FlutterinBantam

yep, indeed he has, untrammeled by the 80/20 rule , and not weighed down by a slew of wasters who have never contributed anything of significance, and never will contribute.

O'leary is good at what he does.

He would not last pissing time in politics where the pompous, self serving, vaccous, insular and verbose windbags who dominate that arena would wear him down in jig time.

So ,no not a good idea.

Outkast_IRE

I think he could be good if given a role limited to increasing productivity and reducing costs .
Besides from that i wouldnt want him directly in control of anything besides he probably couldnt resist the urge to promote ryanair at any chance!!!

Bottle_of_Smoke

He said business giants such as Michael O'Leary...., not: we need michael o leary now!

Wouldn't it be better to discuss that idea rather than have another michael o leary popularity debate?

nesf

I don't see any point in taking a business person and putting them in the Cabinet. To use a loose analogy, there's a big difference between being well able to drive a car and being able to design and build one. Maximising profits within an economy is one thing, creating policy to run an economy is a whole other kettle of fish.

That said, I rarely take anything said by Ed. Walsh very seriously.

Diarmuid

nesf wrote: »

I don't see any point in taking a business person and putting them in the Cabinet. To use a loose analogy, there's a big difference between being well able to drive a car and being able to design and build one. Maximising profits within an economy is one thing, creating policy to run an economy is a whole other kettle of fish.

Yes, much better to let it in the capable hands of lawyers, teachers, social workers and farmers.

EDIT: I doubt O'Leary would want a cabinet spot in any case

hallelujajordan

nesf wrote: »

I don't see any point in taking a business person and putting them in the Cabinet. To use a loose analogy, there's a big difference between being well able to drive a car and being able to design and build one. Maximising profits within an economy is one thing, creating policy to run an economy is a whole other kettle of fish.

That said, I rarely take anything said by Ed. Walsh very seriously.

I disagree . . I believe that running a country is not completely different to running a succesful company. . . Those people who have had good success at cabinet level are likely to bring a lot of experience and ideas to the cabinet table.

nesf

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I disagree . . I believe that running a country is not completely different to running a succesful company. . . Those people who have had good success at cabinet level are likely to bring a lot of experience and ideas to the cabinet table.

Sure, there's no reason for them to be Ministers though. They could be consulted without the need to do such.

Darragh29

You could bring God almighty himself down and stick him in the cabinet, the situation will be the same as it currently is, cuts in public sector need to happen and the unions will oppose the cuts. It doesn't matter who is speaking into the microphone, whether it be Michael O' Leary or Bill Gates, the outcome in terms of the situation we are now in, will be the same: CONFLICT...

jhegarty

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What is your opinion on this?


My opinion is fairly simple:
1) It would be pointless bringing O'Leary into the current government, they are far too corrupt and far too resistant to change for him to have any real effect. They share mutual hatred of each other. People will never support this government again. He would have to be brought into a new government to make it work.

The government would be more than happy to wash their hands of the issue , and blame him if anything goes wrong. He would be Harney version 2.0

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

2) If the McCarthy report was largely ignored, what would be the advantage of O'Leary? O'Leary is able to do what he does because he runs a private sector company as a dictatorship.
If he was given free reign, I'm sure he could do some good. When massively overpaid teachers are having pre-emptive strikes, its hard to imagine his leadership style being of any use at all. You simply cannot reform.

When was the late time Ryanair had a strike. I can see him giving them a choice , one involves cuts , the next working the summer in the dole office , the third to f**k off and get a new job.

There will be a change of attitude when they realise someone will stand up to them.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

3) In Ireland, Private sector company employees can simply be fired if they resist change and rewarded for productivity, so there is a carrot and stick.
In Ireland, there is really no stick for the public sector, just the carrot.
This would make O'Leary ineffective.
The system needs to be changed before it can be reformed.

He is just the man to change that attitude.

irish_bob

we often hear it said that running a country is not the same as running a company , if you exclude the political pandering and lip service , it is the same , the money has to come from somewhere , if the public servants dont have to face pay cuts , the tax payers will have to be squeezed tighter

johnnyc

Darragh29 wrote: »

You could bring God almighty himself down and stick him in the cabinet, the situation will be the same as it currently is, cuts in public sector need to happen and the unions will oppose the cuts. It doesn't matter who is speaking into the microphone, whether it be Michael O' Leary or Bill Gates, the outcome in terms of the situation we are now in, will be the same: CONFLICT...

Agree 100% per cent in what your saying also the unions need to be broken....

nesf

irish_bob wrote: »

we often hear it said that running a country is not the same as running a company , if you exclude the political pandering and lip service , it is the same , the money has to come from somewhere , if the public servants dont have to face pay cuts , the tax payers will have to be squeezed tighter

Running a country isn't about maximising profit though. There isn't a single factor that measures success which is what makes it so different. If it was simply a matter of providing sufficient public services so to get yourself reelected while running as large a surplus as possible then I'd agree with you but running a country isn't just about balancing the books.

bijapos

O'Leary for Minister? Would ye all just cop on a bit, I've rarely read such sh1te in all the time I've been on this forum, and thats saying something. If he was Health minister we'd have the US system here in a year or so, and that system doesn't work. O'Leary isn't all genius, he has a hgh turnover of staff compared to other airlines and he screwed up badly with hedging on oil prices the last couple of years, not once but twice. Yes Yes Yes, he has made a company succesful but he isn't the only one to do that and only 18 months ago people were clamouring for the likes of Bernard McNamara and his cohorts to run the country, they were supposed to be the biggest brains in the country and look where they put us now.

I certainlt don't believe that the present set of ministers are much good (and whats sitting on the opposition benches are no better) but populist crap like this never works. There are some people outside of government and the civil service who would do a better job but spouting about O'Leary as being the man for the job is bordering on totally delusional. People should also realise its people in the civil service who are responsible for a huge amount of the day to day running of this country and are as culpable for a lot of the maladministration that goes on here as anyone else.

And to cap it all off the idea comes from Ed Walsh. Ah yes Ed, I remember him well from my time in Limerick in the late 80's. Enough said.

Dr Galen

when the Irish electorate stop electing politicians because of what family names they have, or stop electing teachers, lawyers or such professions as TD's then maybe we'll see a change in how the country is run. Right now, and for a long long time past, politics in this country has been nothing but a personality parade, instead of electing people based on the skills they would bring to the table.

While O'Leary has apparently a great business head on his shoulders, I wouldn't want him as a minister. He's very good at what he does now, but I don't think those skills would be transferable to a ministry. I love how he's held up as some sort of folk hero though, this is the same guy who considered charging to have a pee on his planes, and who eeks every last cent out his customers, with pretty poor customer service to boot.

Dannyboy83

bijapos wrote: »

O'Leary for Minister? Would ye all just cop on a bit, I've rarely read such sh1te in all the time I've been on this forum, and thats saying something.

LOL:D

DeVore

How is O'Leary a great businessman?? He adopted a business model long long established (loss leader recouped by hidden charges, reduced quality and advertising at a captive market)?

He's no business guru, he's an obnoxious foul mouthed man who values money over people.


Yeah, we're REALLY short of people like that in the government. :rolleyes:

DeV.

ps: bijapos, if you read the OP it wasnt suggested on this site, it was suggested and reported in the media and is being DISCUSSED here...

Diarmuid

DeVore wrote: »

How is O'Leary a great businessman?? He adopted a business model long long established (loss leader recouped by hidden charges, reduced quality and advertising at a captive market)?

He's no business guru, he's an obnoxious foul mouthed man who values money over people.

Well let's see

• He built a company in a market dominated by a government run monoply
• When he took over as CEO in '94 they carried about 1m passengers, they are carrying about 60m this year
• The company has been profitable pretty much every year since he took it over
• The company is one of the most profitable airline in the world

If you can't see how that makes him a great business man, then I'm afraid you don't have a clue