The first broken promise of the new government?

oppenheimer1 · 10-03-2011 08:19PM #1

This time two years ago, almost exactly to the day, Enda Kenny announced that he would cut the number of junior ministries by 8. It appears that this promise has gone by the wayside as Enda needed to reward the people that supported him during the heave. So much for change... more of the same it seems...

eco2live · 10-03-2011 08:21PM

Depends on how much they are all getting paid. Is he not going to cut ministers and junior ministers wages? Giving people areas of responsibility is not the problem. Its how much it will cost us.

I will be watching this too. Well spotted.

jeepers101 · 10-03-2011 08:22PM

That was from 20 so he really just needed to cut another three.

If he can't even do that there's a fat chance of him cutting the number of TDs.

senordingdong · 10-03-2011 08:28PM

Will his abolition of the Seanad play a part in this?

dixiefly · 10-03-2011 08:53PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This time two years ago, almost exactly to the day, Enda Kenny announced that he would cut the number of junior ministries by 8. It appears that this promise has gone by the wayside as Enda needed to reward the people that supported him during the heave. So much for change... more of the same it seems...

Was it in the manifesto? I dont remember seeing it there.

Maybe they will renege on various promises but I would use the manifesto as the yardstick not some speach made 2 years ago. After all, with negotiations in the programme for government in a coalition all promises were never going to be met.
You will have to come up with some better examples to convince me of your theory that they are breaking their promises.

P.S. as an aside - would you not give the guy a chance? Only just formed the government. They have reduced their inflated pay, eliminated the severence pay (both remnants of Bertie/Charlie), promised to abolish the Seanad etc. No matter what they do some will look to pick holes.

leeroybrown · 10-03-2011 09:11PM

He'd revised his planned number to 12 prior to the election. In the context of an FG/Lab coalition they probably need to up the number by a few. TBH, I couldn't care less how many of them there are so long as they're being put to good use and not being ridiculously remunerated for it.

It's a coalition deal, there'll be plenty of stuff that'll be referred to broken promises on both sides in order to make the relationship work.

aDeener · 10-03-2011 09:16PM

dixiefly wrote: »

Was it in the manifesto? I dont remember seeing it there.

Maybe they will renege on various promises but I would use the manifesto as the yardstick not some speach made 2 years ago. After all, with negotiations in the programme for government in a coalition all promises were never going to be met.
You will have to come up with some better examples to convince me of your theory that they are breaking their promises.

P.S. as an aside - would you not give the guy a chance? Only just formed the government. They have reduced their inflated pay, eliminated the severence pay (both remnants of Bertie/Charlie), promised to abolish the Seanad etc. No matter what they do some will look to pick holes.

ridiculous promise to make considering that needs a referendum!! :pac:

Avns1s · 10-03-2011 09:21PM

dixiefly wrote: »

P.S. as an aside - would you not give the guy a chance? Only just formed the government. They have reduced their inflated pay, eliminated the severence pay (both remnants of Bertie/Charlie), promised to abolish the Seanad etc. No matter what they do some will look to pick holes.

+1

For God's sake, the new Government haven't hardly got in the door! Will you give them a chance. The dire circumstances we are in, won't be sorted overnight!

dixiefly · 10-03-2011 09:28PM

aDeener wrote: »

ridiculous promise to make considering that needs a referendum!! :pac:

Is it not up to the government to bring the referendum to the people? If they dont then the status remains the same. So, there is merit in the promise.

flutered · 10-03-2011 09:35PM

on the plus side he is on 45,000 a year less than the squatter in the cupboard.

oppenheimer1 · 10-03-2011 10:48PM

dixiefly wrote: »

Was it in the manifesto? I dont remember seeing it there.

Maybe they will renege on various promises but I would use the manifesto as the yardstick not some speach made 2 years ago. After all, with negotiations in the programme for government in a coalition all promises were never going to be met.
You will have to come up with some better examples to convince me of your theory that they are breaking their promises.

P.S. as an aside - would you not give the guy a chance? Only just formed the government. They have reduced their inflated pay, eliminated the severence pay (both remnants of Bertie/Charlie), promised to abolish the Seanad etc. No matter what they do some will look to pick holes.

Its not just picking holes but this was something they had the opportunity to change immediately. I'm judging them on their actions so far. Just how much of the guff they were spouting was populist nonsense just to cosy up to the electorate when they were in opposition? They've had the opportunity to implement one of their ideas but have chosen not to. How many other of their ideas are non runners now that they hold the levers of power?

I can understand their hands being tied in the economic circumstances with the agreement negotiated by the previous government but political reform is totally in their hands. Here Enda had the opportunity to show us his intention for reform but clearly thought rewarding his buddies was more important.

johngalway · 10-03-2011 10:52PM

flutered wrote: »

on the plus side he is on 45,000 a year less than the squatter in the cupboard.

It's wrong that I can only thank this post once!

Baralis1 · 11-03-2011 02:53AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its not just picking holes but this was something they had the opportunity to change immediately. I'm judging them on their actions so far. Just how much of the guff they were spouting was populist nonsense just to cosy up to the electorate when they were in opposition? They've had the opportunity to implement one of their ideas but have chosen not to. How many other of their ideas are non runners now that they hold the levers of power?

I can understand their hands being tied in the economic circumstances with the agreement negotiated by the previous government but political reform is totally in their hands. Here Enda had the opportunity to show us his intention for reform but clearly thought rewarding his buddies was more important.

I agree. While they deserve a chance to prove their worth, deciding on the number of junior ministries is something they have to decide now, not in a few months time so I believe we can measure them on it. I believe there will be lots more examples to come of them speaking out of both sides of their mouths. After all the talking they did about the number of junior ministries, it is highly hypocritical not to do as they said. It also typical that they are sending 8 ministers abroad for Paddies day. Were they not asking only last year why any minister needs to go abroad!

Einhard · 11-03-2011 03:12AM

Oh for God's sake, are we going to have these kind of threads every single time the new government fails to live up to a minor promise, or even intimation of a promise? Seriously, it'll get very tedious after a while.

No government in history has delivered on every single one its pledges. To expect such an undertaking is naive in the extreme. In 5 years time, or whenever the next election is called, I'll judge this administration on its general performance, and the progress made towards achieving the majority of its pledges. As long as a sustained effort is made to implement the broad substance of the manifesto, I'll be happy enough to let individual minor promises to fall by the wayside. To expect more is not only to expect too much of government, but of human nature!

heyjude · 11-03-2011 03:36AM

eco2live wrote: »

Giving people areas of responsibility is not the problem. Its how much it will cost us.

The big issue though is not what its going to cost us now, but what its going to cost us in the future as politicians future pensions are based on their income, so if a TD gets to serve 4-5 years as a junior minister it adds considerably to the pension they can claim in the future.

As for the promise to abolish the Seanad, I don't think that was ever going to happen, they were always going to find an excuse like the need for a constitutional referendum, their inability to abolish the Seanad just after a Seanad election or that old reliable,'following advise from the attorney general', to justify its continued existence. Besides the idea achieved its aim of attracting more support to Fine Gael, so job done. Enda and Eamon also wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to nominate 11 new senators from their party ranks :rolleyes:

heyjude · 11-03-2011 03:41AM

Einhard wrote: »

Oh for God's sake, are we going to have these kind of threads every single time the new government fails to live up to a minor promise, or even intimation of a promise? Seriously, it'll get very tedious after a while.

No government in history has delivered on every single one its pledges. To expect such an undertaking is naive in the extreme. In 5 years time, or whenever the next election is called, I'll judge this administration on its general performance, and the progress made towards achieving the majority of its pledges. As long as a sustained effort is made to implement the broad substance of the manifesto, I'll be happy enough to let individual minor promises to fall by the wayside. To expect more is not only to expect too much of government, but of human nature!

Its true that no government in history has delivered on every single pledge, but given the financial state of the economy and the exchequer in particular, these pledges could have been implemented at relatively little immediate cost and would have brought savings into the future, while also illustrating to the public the willingness of the government to make decisions to really reform politics and eliminate waste.

Einhard · 11-03-2011 04:03AM

heyjude wrote: »

Its true that no government in history has delivered on every single pledge, but given the financial state of the economy and the exchequer in particular, these pledges could have been implemented at relatively little immediate cost and would have brought savings into the future, while also illustrating to the public the willingness of the government to make decisions to really reform politics and eliminate waste.

That's a valid criticism, but I'm far from assured that this number of junior ministers isn't needed. As it is, I think there's a strong case for increasing the number of senior portfolios, and I'm not convinced that there's a meritorious, as opposed to a purely populist case, for a reduction in the number of junior posts.

My initial response wasn't so much a reaction to the OP's point, but to numerous comments on here and elsewhere, lamenting the government's failure to abide by promises, real or imagined. It's to be expected that administrations won't follow their pre-election manifestos to the nth degree, and it's unreasonable, I think, to pass negative judgement on the current one based solely on a single act. The new administration is in office one full day...why not wait to see what happens before making one's mind up?

jank · 11-03-2011 04:32AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This time two years ago, almost exactly to the day, Enda Kenny announced that he would cut the number of junior ministries by 8. It appears that this promise has gone by the wayside as Enda needed to reward the people that supported him during the heave. So much for change... more of the same it seems...

This was NEVER in the FG manifesto or in the new programme for government so it is NOT a promise broken.

Bertie once had 21 so 21-6=15... so they are only two out and in the biggest coalition in the states history not bad to be honest!

Its pathetic! TRY HARDER!

Biggins · 11-03-2011 10:41AM

jank wrote: »

This was NEVER in the FG manifesto or in the new programme for government so it is NOT a promise broken.

When you address the Irish public and state that your going to reduce ministers, what are his words supposed to be taken as? A joke?
(Sorry public, ye didn't read the small print - or lack of it!)

While NO TD/political party has ever kept all of what they have stated they will do, its only day three of this government and already they have made a total farce effort in regards to reducing their pay, a farce out of reducing ministers, a farce out of pledges on the economy and the old guard of parties have been commented as to have been looked after first before the public's needs, which need to be much addressed!

At this rate Fianna Fail are going to be proud of them with already so many u-turns!

Sources:
* http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elections/voter-betrayal-fglabour-to-ditch-pledges-on-economy-2567686.html
* http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-do-the-ministerial-pay-cuts-go-far-enough-2011-03/
* http://www.thejournal.ie/taoiseach-and-new-cabinet-reduce-pay-in-first-act-of-new-government-2011-03/
* http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kenny-reneges-on-pledge-to-reduce-ministers-2575551.html

Barlett · 11-03-2011 10:48AM

If the new government gets this country back on its feet, I don't care what promises they renege on. That is what really matters, sorting out the economic situation not how many junior ministers they have. Let's judge them on important matters.

Biggins · 11-03-2011 10:55AM

Barlett wrote: »

If the new government gets this country back on its feet, I don't care what promises they renege on. That is what really matters, sorting out the economic situation not how many junior ministers they have. Let's judge them on important matters.

So the matters (including the economy and Fianna Fails invoked plans) they have already u-turned on are not important?

How can anyone trust a government (either at home or abroad) and take it seriously when they are seemingly starting out as what was wanted rid of beforehand?

Not exactly a good start off way to build up trust at home and elsewhere.
As Merkel once again is bullying Enda to up our corp' rate, I have worries about his subsequent words on it!
What! We are only supposed to take it as gospel IF it is written down somewhere?
Hell - the pledges on the economy were written down and they've backtracked on them - already!

thebman · 11-03-2011 11:11AM

This is the second thread with this title started by FF people.

Next time, I'm officially declaring them the boy who cried wolf :P

11-03-2011 11:23AM

Biggins wrote: »

Not exactly a good start off way to build up trust at home and elsewhere.

lol...
what a ridiculous exaggeration.

jmayo · 11-03-2011 11:27AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This time two years ago, almost exactly to the day, Enda Kenny announced that he would cut the number of junior ministries by 8. It appears that this promise has gone by the wayside as Enda needed to reward the people that supported him during the heave. So much for change... more of the same it seems...

I find it a bit rich that lenihan's greatest apologist is off the mark so fast about this. If only you were as good at criticising the inefficiences and wastage of the last government. :rolleyes:

In case you haven't noticed Kenny is leading a coalition government, and not just a government with FG, so not all FG policies or promises will be implemented :rolleyes:

Funny though you have failed to mention they cut salaries immediately and they are going to cut the perks of ministers.

Also I noted you failed to mention how they are only sending 8 ministers overseas for St Paddy's Day.

That would be 8 as opposed to the ff led government you have luaded so much on here that sent over 20 ministers/jnr ministers, hangers on, etc.

dicknorris · 11-03-2011 11:29AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This time two years ago, almost exactly to the day, Enda Kenny announced that he would cut the number of junior ministries by 8. It appears that this promise has gone by the wayside as Enda needed to reward the people that supported him during the heave. So much for change... more of the same it seems...

You ain't seen nothing yet :P

conorhal · 11-03-2011 02:33PM

Einhard wrote: »

Oh for God's sake, are we going to have these kind of threads every single time the new government fails to live up to a minor promise, or even intimation of a promise? Seriously, it'll get very tedious after a while.

No government in history has delivered on every single one its pledges. To expect such an undertaking is naive in the extreme. In 5 years time, or whenever the next election is called, I'll judge this administration on its general performance, and the progress made towards achieving the majority of its pledges. As long as a sustained effort is made to implement the broad substance of the manifesto, I'll be happy enough to let individual minor promises to fall by the wayside. To expect more is not only to expect too much of government, but of human nature!

We should absolutely hammer the government for every failed promise.

Shrugging and saying 'ah sure isn't that what parties do, lie to get in and ditch their promises as soon as they get the keys to a Merc' is the kind attitude that leads to a failure to hold government to account, if a government once in office thinks it can do what it likes as opposed to what it has been elected to do, then all we will get is cronyism and broken promises.

Every 5 years in not the timeframe on which to rate the performance of the government, like banking regulation, Government should be subject to constant vigilance and assessment, particularly in these times when performance is crucial, sorry if you find that tiresome.

Einhard · 11-03-2011 02:53PM

conorhal wrote: »

We should absolutely hammer the government for every failed promise.

Shrugging and saying 'ah sure isn't that what parties do, lie to get in and ditch their promises as soon as they get the keys to a Merc' is the kind attitude that leads to a failure to hold government to account, if a government once in office thinks it can do what it likes as opposed to what it has been elected to do, then all we will get is cronyism and broken promises.

Sometimes promises just can't be kept. It's naive in the extreme to expect a government to keep evey single one of its pre-election pledges. Supposing FG and Labour do wonders and manage to turn the economy around, suppose even they do a a better job than expected- will you set all that at null and void because they, for example, lowered class sizes to 23 instead of 22, or reduced the number of junior ministers to 10 instead of 8? It's important to keep governments on their toes, and vigilance is always a good thing, but it's also important to see the wider picture, and not let the tress obscure one's view of the woods!

conorhal · 11-03-2011 03:07PM

Einhard wrote: »

[/COLOR]

Sometimes promises just can't be kept. It's naive in the extreme to expect a government to keep evey single one of its pre-election pledges. Supposing FG and Labour do wonders and manage to turn the economy around, suppose even they do a a better job than expected- will you set all that at null and void because they, for example, lowered class sizes to 23 instead of 22, or reduced the number of junior ministers to 10 instead of 8? It's important to keep governments on their toes, and vigilance is always a good thing, but it's also important to see the wider picture, and not let the tress obscure one's view of the woods!

No of course not, but they must be challenged to justify their failure to impliment promises. I find this first hurdle that they have fallen at foreboding. The reason that so many junior ministeries exist is down to Bertie's 'one for everybody in the audience' politices, he expanded their numbers in an attempt to buy off coalition partners and keep rowdy backbenchers happy. To continue that policy is a fundemental failure of the 'new politics' that both government parties promised. We are back to political expediency and business as usual.
Lets not forget that political reform was a major platform of the government parties and one of the highest rated concerns raised on the doorstep and not some minor sweetner offered to the electorate.

jimmycrackcorm · 11-03-2011 04:31PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It appears that this promise has gone by the wayside as Enda needed to reward the people that supported him during the heave.

What about juicy Luci?

rumour · 11-03-2011 04:45PM

Einhard wrote: »

Oh for God's sake, are we going to have these kind of threads every single time the new government fails to live up to a minor promise........

Yes, Yes & Yes again. I don't comphrehend why we should accept misrepresentation. In a contract it is against the law.

Einhard · 11-03-2011 05:11PM

conorhal wrote: »

No of course not, but they must be challenged to justify their failure to impliment promises. I find this first hurdle that they have fallen at foreboding. The reason that so many junior ministeries exist is down to Bertie's 'one for everybody in the audience' politices, he expanded their numbers in an attempt to buy off coalition partners and keep rowdy backbenchers happy. To continue that policy is a fundemental failure of the 'new politics' that both government parties promised. We are back to political expediency and business as usual.
Lets not forget that political reform was a major platform of the government parties and one of the highest rated concerns raised on the doorstep and not some minor sweetner offered to the electorate.

Well, first off, othe rposters have pointed out that it wasn't part of FG's manifesto. Also, in any coalition programme for government, there has to be compromise, and one can't expect every single pledge to be maintained if the party making the pledge hasn't a majority.

I take your point though about constructive criticism being warranted, but I have a feeling that every little misstep this administration makes, or every prmise it falls short on, will be pounced on and used out of context. To criticise a policy is one thing, to condemn utterly on the basis of individual actions, as some are wont to do, is another thing entirely. And, IMO, unwarranted.

Also, I have yet to see anything to convince me that there are too many junior ministers. One of the worst aspects of FF's maladministration is the cynicism that abounds about politics, and I think some of that is at play here. Running a country is a complicated and difficult task, and to demand reductions in the number of senior political functionaries based on populist principles, rather than an objective rationale is a mistake. As I stated already, I actually think that it might be a good idea to increase the number of senior portfolios. But, were any administration to suggest such a thing, it's be inundated with shireks of "jobs for the boys" etc. I've no problem with criticism of policy and action in itself- I do when such criticism is based on populism and optics, rather than substantive arguments.

The first broken promise of the new government?

Comments