Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Oireachtas Reform (upcoming Liberal Society Debate)

Options
  • 25-06-2010 11:56pm
    #1
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭


    As mentioned in another thread, the Liberal Society are having a debate on Oireachtas reform on Tuesday, with representatives from every party bar Fine gael.
    The event will be chaired by Tom Clonan ("If Lynch had invaded") and speakers include former Minister for Finance Ruairí Quinn TD, Minister of State for European Affairs Dick Roche, former Tainaiste Michael McDowell, and Senator Dan Boyle. Details here.


    I was wondering what people here think about Oireachtas reform?
    Many people have called for the Dail to be shrunk down to 100 or so, and the Seanad to be abolished, but I disagree with this.

    I think the first thing that has to be done is to seperate out the legislature from the executive. The Taoiseach should be allowed to nominate who he wants to a particular ministry, and then have the Dail endorse them.
    This would mean that:
    (1) We could have actual accountability, as they could be fired/made resign and there would be no question of where the replacement would come from. Also, they would have no seperate mandate and could be forced to leave public life altogether for misbehaviour.

    (2)That the pool of candidates would be far wider than before - America's equivalent of the Minister for Environment is a Nobel prize-winner because Obama wasn't stuck appointing people from the pool of elected representatives.

    (3) Ministries would no longer be doled out on a geographical basis - as Ministers would no longer have to seek reelection, they would not have to divert resources on a disproportionate basis to their constituency.

    (4) Ministers could work full-time at their brief and would not have to keep running back to their constituency to get votes.

    (5) Ministers could be judged solely on their achievements while in office, and the situation where an awful Minister could be kept in place due to the fact that he was a big vote-getter would be gone.

    What would be the first Oireachtas reform that you would put in place?


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Abolition of the Party Whip system!

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #3
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Abolition of the Party Whip system!

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Can that actually be done though?

    I used to think that, but when I read back it seems to have arisen due to natural selection - those parties without it seem to have died while those with it seem to do better.

    It doesn't seem to be a product of a particular law or constitutional clause, but rather seems to stem from the forces that arise from democracy itself.


  • Options
    #4
    bijapos
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭bijapos


    My 2 cents worth, just a few ideas. The system needs to be completley overhauled, not just bit by bit.


    National Government

    Elections every four years.

    100 seats

    List system for voting.

    50 on a single national list.

    50 by constituency using 8 constituencies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland and using the present system of PRSTV

    Referendum on Abolotion of Seanad

    20% reduction in TD's wages
    30% reduction for Junior ministers
    40% for ministers
    50% for Tanaiste and Taoiseach

    Presidents wages to be reduced to €100,000 as it is only a representative post. Expenses, pensions etc to be overhauled.

    Complete overhaul of expenses pensions staffing numbers etc

    TD's to spend 5 days a week in Dublin, a lot of the constituency work will be taken over by regional councillors.

    Referendum to be held if 100,000 registered voters sign a petition.

    Pensions only payable at 68. No multiple pensions.

    Presidents Office

    Presidents office to be overhauled.

    Term of 5 years

    Nomination possible with 25,000 signatures, or one county council backing or three TD's or Senators both serving and retired.

    Minimum age of candidate to be dropped to 18.


    Local Government

    8 regional councils

    Elected every 4 years

    Elections per region to be staggered every 6 months

    Voting age of 17

    One councillor per 8,000 voters

    Position of councillor to be a full time one

    5% of electorate signing a petition to force a referendum in the region, result legally binding

    Local government to be given tax raising powers in some areas.



    Community Government

    A town/village/parish/area to be given the possibility to create a community council where a portion of some locally raised taxes such as rates, second home taxes, property taxes, will be given to that community to spend locally on educational, cultural, sporting and amenity issues.

    Comm. councils to be elected every year, basic renumeration of €100 per councillor p.a. to cover phone, petrol etc.

    Maximum of 1 councillor per 200 people max of 1 per 100.

    An area of 1500 people may form their own community council.

    10% of the electorate in that area may sign for a binding referendum to be held.

    Person may stand for election at 16

    Voting age of 15.


  • Options
    #5
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Abolition of the Party Whip system!

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    +1


  • Options
    #6
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    'Binding referendums'??? The experience of California would suggest that most people are idiots and incapable of distinguishing the contradiction between voting to cut taxes whilst simultaneously voting to increase spending. The less democracy in these cases the better.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    blubloblu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭blubloblu


    What about electing the Seanad from one nationwide constituency?


  • Options
    #8
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    blubloblu wrote: »
    What about electing the Seanad from one nationwide constituency?

    I thought of that a while ago, and so far I haven't been able to find any problems - hell of a ballot paper though:)


  • Options
    #9
    Sulmac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    A national list system with 100 TDs (1% of the vote = 1 seat) would be the first thing, but see here and here too (though not everything relates to Oireachtas reform!).

    edit: The_Minister, although I agree with your idea of separating the executive and legislature, the only thing I fear is that a Taoiseach would just use it to nominate their "buddies" who failed to get elected to the Dáil (rather than someone who would genuinely be good at the job) - something akin to the eleven Taoiseach nominees we have to the Seanad now!

    It will take more than just Oireachtas reform, what we need is an entire shift in attitudes to politics.


  • Options
    #10
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    blubloblu wrote: »
    What about electing the Seanad from one nationwide constituency?

    How about reducing it to 40 and having it elected along European constituency lines with 10 senators per constituency?


  • Options
    #11
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    How about reducing it to 40 and having it elected along European constituency lines with 10 senators per constituency?

    There is no reason to do this. Personally I would like to see a non partisan upper house with greater powers of oversight, to act as a check on the lower house. I don't think unicameral parliaments are good ideas. On the other hand, in the present circumstances, what is to be gained from electing senators? Turnout would be ridiculously low, so low in fact that an awful lot of chancers will get in due to the law of probability. Expect some Pat Short parodies in there if this ever comes about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #13
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    The_Minister wrote: »
    I thought of that a while ago, and so far I haven't been able to find any problems - hell of a ballot paper though:)

    Open up the Seanad to a wider electorate and you then just have a mirror image of the Dail. More gombeenism and the likes of Ross and Norris wouldn't get a look in.
    Scofflaw wrote:
    Abolition of the Party Whip system!

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    Whilst it would be nice to allow people to be free to vote as the so choose, and technically I believe this is still the case, you can't take away the freedom of people to associate.


  • Options
    #14
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    bryanw wrote: »


    Whilst it would be nice to allow people to be free to vote as the so choose, and technically I believe this is still the case, you can't take away the freedom of people to associate.

    They can associate all they want, just have every vote a free vote.


  • Options
    #15
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Yes, but if they wish to be a member of a party, such a party may impose a whip, meaning that those who vote against can be reprimanded by the party. Nothing to do with the Oireactas as such, but of being a member of the party.


  • Options
    #16
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bryanw wrote: »
    Yes, but if they wish to be a member of a party, such a party may impose a whip, meaning that those who vote against can be reprimanded by the party. Nothing to do with the Oireactas as such, but of being a member of the party.
    You actually make a valid point: the concept of a party whip is one of internal party discipline, as distinct from an intrinsic feature of our political system.

    So, what we need to do is get the message across to our political representatives that we object to a system that places loyalty to the party above duty to the electorate.

    Of course, the right way to do that is to vote those representatives out at the next election - but we don't have a good track record of voting people out even after near-criminal wrongdoing, so I don't hold out much hope for voting them out in the hope of forcing political reform.


  • Options
    #17
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You actually make a valid point: the concept of a party whip is one of internal party discipline, as distinct from an intrinsic feature of our political system.

    So, what we need to do is get the message across to our political representatives that we object to a system that places loyalty to the party above duty to the electorate.

    Of course, the right way to do that is to vote those representatives out at the next election - but we don't have a good track record of voting people out even after near-criminal wrongdoing, so I don't hold out much hope for voting them out in the hope of forcing political reform.
    Turkeys voting for Christmas...


  • Options
    #18
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    who arguing against the motion? haha


    thats what we need more blonde women staring into the middle distance that'll clean up the oireacthas

    http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object2/1498/78/n123670627669517_5391.jpg


  • Options
    #19
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Of course, the right way to do that is to vote those representatives out at the next election - but we don't have a good track record of voting people out even after near-criminal wrongdoing, so I don't hold out much hope for voting them out in the hope of forcing political reform.

    .


    wouldn't make much difference if the next person that comes in votes with the whip of their party, unless your blaming the people for not voting out all the party politicians overnight?


  • Options
    #20
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Oh, and btw, if any of you come on the night, feel free to say hi.:)

    I'll be the tall guy with blonde hair, glasses and a hassled look on my face.

    I know we don't have politics beers because we would all kill each other :P but it would be cool to meet some Boardsies.


  • Options
    #21
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    The_Minister wrote: »
    I know we don't have politics beers because we would all kill each other :P but it would be cool to meet some Boardsies.

    yeah t'would be an interesting gathering alright.
    enjoy the debate


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    The_Minister wrote: »
    Oh, and btw, if any of you come on the night, feel free to say hi.:)

    I'll be the tall guy with blonde hair, glasses and a hassled look on my face.

    I know we don't have politics beers because we would all kill each other :P but it would be cool to meet some Boardsies.

    Also identifiable by virtue of his disposition to breath in a threatening manner if surrounded by women !


  • Options
    #23
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Also identifiable by virtue of his disposition to breath in a threatening manner if surrounded by women !

    There will be women there!?:eek:

    *hyperventilates*


  • Options
    #24
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    The_Minister wrote: »
    There will be women there!?:eek:

    *hyperventilates*
    A gender quota will be imposed. Drag if needs be.


  • Options
    #25
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    bryanw wrote: »
    A gender quota will be imposed. Drag if needs be.

    I didnt know you're dad was coming !!!???!!!


  • Options
    #26
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Het-Field wrote: »
    I didnt know you're dad was coming !!!???!!!
    Ouch! The bitch has claws, girlfriend!

    At least my joke had something vaguely to do with political reform!


  • Options
    #27
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Sulmac wrote: »
    edit: The_Minister, although I agree with your idea of separating the executive and legislature, the only thing I fear is that a Taoiseach would just use it to nominate their "buddies" who failed to get elected to the Dáil (rather than someone who would genuinely be good at the job) - something akin to the eleven Taoiseach nominees we have to the Seanad now!

    They would appoint the policy wonks from the bowels of the party, who tend to be unelectable but absolute geniuses.


  • Options
    #28
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    The_Minister wrote: »
    They would appoint the policy wonks from the bowels of the party, who tend to be unelectable but absolute geniuses.
    More like Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, Ivor Callely, Eoghan Harris, Donie Cassidy... to name but a few.

    All these would be on the short-list for a FF Taoiseach-appointed cabinet!


  • Options
    #29
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    The_Minister wrote: »
    They would appoint the policy wonks from the bowels of the party, who tend to be unelectable but absolute geniuses.

    Martin Mansergh, Michael McDowell, Stephen O Byrnes, Conor Cruse O Brien, Peter Sutherland, and John Rogers all spring to mind. These are men which would be very useful in the executive. However, none are conventionally electable, but could be very useful as policy makers. The same applies to people like Maurice Neligan, Denis O Brien etc.

    The difficulty in Irish politics is that it becomes a haven for the ousted hack, who is then dressed up as an "intellect", and put into lowly positions of policy formation.


  • Options
    #30
    scallioneater
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭scallioneater


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    My understanding was that the role of the Seanad was just to function as a "brake" rather than as a "check" on the lower house.

    I don't think that we need to scrap the Seanad, it forms a valuable venue for opposition or support. Almost every other democracy is bi-cameral, I don't know why we shoud get rid of ours.

    The Seanad is also a good place for excluded groups to gain a voice. Groups as varied as the openly gay and businesses have gotten reps into the Seanad. These people would never get elected to the Dail, but they contribute extremely valuable perspectives to the national debates. (ie. When I was growing up, Senator Norris was a refreshing opinion when every other role model I knew denied the existence of homosexuality)

    My reform for the Seanad would include cutting pay, but I would add some extra panels for the Unemployed, Immigrants, and for Travellers. For me, the Seanad can grow into an exceptionally inclusive government body, that the Dail can never be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    scallioneater wrote: »
    My understanding was that the role of the Seanad was just to function as a "brake" rather than as a "check" on the lower house.

    I don't think that we need to scrap the Seanad, it forms a valuable venue for opposition or support. Almost every other democracy is bi-cameral, I don't know why we shoud get rid of ours.

    The Seanad is also a good place for excluded groups to gain a voice. Groups as varied as the openly gay and businesses have gotten reps into the Seanad. These people would never get elected to the Dail, but they contribute extremely valuable perspectives to the national debates. (ie. When I was growing up, Senator Norris was a refreshing opinion when every other role model I knew denied the existence of homosexuality)

    My reform for the Seanad would include cutting pay, but I would add some extra panels for the Unemployed, Immigrants, and for Travellers. For me, the Seanad can grow into an exceptionally inclusive government body, that the Dail can never be.

    The Seanad is undemocratic. If it is to stay the members should be elected by the entire electorate and not the elite few and political appointments. And it should also have the power to stop legislation passed by the Dail if the members see fit. Other than than it is a talking shop, and an 'old folks home' for politicians


Advertisement