Irish TDs - Conviction Politics or Jobs for Life?

golfwallah · 09-04-2014 7:36pm #1

Vincent Browne paints an interesting slant on Irish politicians in the Irish Times today:

Politics is all about acquiring office and retaining it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/politics-is-all-about-acquiring-office-and-retaining-it-1.1754602

Unfortunately his article has a depressingly true ring to it – all the more so because he concludes that no matter which political party gets into power, nothing will change. All that matters is gaining and retaining office.

It’s hard to disagree with the points he makes. How bad does it have to get before we can expect real political leadership and accountability?

touts · 10-04-2014 7:32am

It's amazing how this applies even to a little power. Last night I had a middle aged greying man arrive at my door canvassing. His second name was distinctive and vaguely familiar and he rabbitted on about wanting my vote. Then up the drive strode this 77 year old infamous local councillor and the name twigged. That gob****e broke into this well rehersed speel about how he was retiring after 30 years serving the people of the area and now it was time to hand over to the next generation and get some young blood into the council. And the best young person was, of course, his son. His son is 45 if he is a day. The only time I heard of his father in the last 5 years was when he was in the newspapers for proposing the most insane, populist, small town, gombeen motions at the council. This utter eegit held on to power for 12 years beyond the normal retirement age for other jobs. And when he finally decided to hand that power over to a fresh face it was the loyal middle aged son who has trotted around behind him for years and believed he had a god ordained right to inherit the power. The sad thing is he'll probably get in.

But I suppose the most annoying thing is not that these families hold onto the power for so long. It is that they do so little with it. There is no vision. No plan for the next 10 years. No idea on how to make the most of local resources to make the local area better. It's all Fill Mrs O'Mahoney's pothole and she'll get us 10 votes. Get a sign up in that estate and that'll be 20 votes. Go to this funeral and it'll be 50 votes. They can best be described as busy fools. And when they do stand up and fight for us it is all tilting at national windmills. "Cllr Ryan condems the Anglo Bailout" "Cllr McCarthy shocked at Garda taping". "Cllr Power calls on Minister to reform Medical Cards". Nothing they say will make a difference because noone with real power in Dublin cares about them. Their power does not apply in these areas yet they insist in wasting it trying to grab headlines. The limited power is exercised not to improve the overall lot of the people but to maximise the votes at the next election.

I suppose all I can say is more fool us for voting them in.

comongethappy · 10-04-2014 10:26am

If it's a job for life, why have votes?

golfwallah · 10-04-2014 11:16am

comongethappy wrote: »

If it's a job for life, why have votes?

It's a job for life because the system allows for people to have more then one term in office. As Brown puts it, the system allows people to go forward more than once, incentivizing those in office to play it safe and only do things than will not jeopardize their chances of re-election.

If elected representatives had only one bite at the cherry, more people with real convictions would put themselves forward. That's his argument, anyway. And he has a point IMHO.

On the other hand, as Plato said: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

comongethappy · 10-04-2014 12:39pm

golfwallah wrote: »

It's a job for life because the system allows for people to have more then one term in office. As Brown puts it, the system allows people to go forward more than once, incentivizing those in office to play it safe and only do things than will not jeopardize their chances of re-election.

If elected representatives had only one bite at the cherry, more people with real convictions would put themselves forward. That's his argument, anyway. And he has a point IMHO.

On the other hand, as Plato said: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

Still doesn't get away from the fact its not a job for live.

Your constituents decide your fate.

golfwallah · 10-04-2014 5:55pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Still doesn't get away from the fact its not a job for live.

Your constituents decide your fate.

Officially, it's not a job for life - but, in reality, look at our long tradition of Irish family political dynasties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Families_in_the_Oireachtas

And yes, constituents have the power to throw politicians out of their jobs, as happened to many FF TDs in the last general election (although quite a few avoided that humiliation by not going forward).

But the problem of political dynasties still remains, acting as a deterrent to conviction based politicians, with a few notable exceptions, for example, Leo Varadker, Mary Lou McDonald, Stephen Donnelly or Clare Daly.

nesf · 15-04-2014 2:23pm

golfwallah wrote: »

But the problem of political dynasties still remains, acting as a deterrent to conviction based politicians, with a few notable exceptions, for example, Leo Varadker, Mary Lou McDonald, Stephen Donnelly or Clare Daly.

Actually, we don't know yet about any of those, some son, daughter or niece or nephew might step up to the plate when one of those steps down, and it could happen for very honourable and sensible reasons, maybe the relative is a good choice to replace them and name recognition does carry weight in elections so it's quite logical if they represent the same kinds of views and would represent the same segment of society well.

And this is the problem with dynasties, it can start for good reasons and end up in "a job for the boy" kind of territory.

Permabear · 15-04-2014 3:24pm

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 15-04-2014 4:19pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think our career politicians take much of a long-term view past the next election cycle anyway.

golfwallah · 15-04-2014 7:46pm

Valmont wrote: »

I don't think our career politicians take much of a long-term view past the next election cycle anyway.

Yes and no – generally, they don’t seem to think too hard about the long term, except when it comes to what will affect their prospects of re-election to office.

Most, with a few notable exceptions, just toe the party line and play it safe by not making too much of a fuss about issues that could impact on their chances of re-election.

Just think about who stood out from the crowd during the recent controversies about An Garda Siochana - this quote from Churchill to a relatively newly elected politician also illustrates the point:

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Muahahaha · 16-04-2014 12:51am

You've also got to think that our PR-STV electoral system means that we can't really ever have conviction politicians because our politicians know that although they may not get your first preference vote you might give them a no.2 or 3 and still help them get elected. An Irish politician cannot alienate anyone and what that results in is that we end up with politicians who must be all things to all people in order to get re-elected. The structures of the electoral system in itself means that populism wins out the day, any conviction politician with a real vision and a plan will get brushed aside in favour of a politician who'll tell them that if he gets elected child benefit is going up and income taxes are coming down and then not be able to deliver on it.

golfwallah · 16-04-2014 12:12pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

You've also got to think that our PR-STV electoral system means that we can't really ever have conviction politicians because our politicians know that although they may not get your first preference vote you might give them a no.2 or 3 and still help them get elected. An Irish politician cannot alienate anyone and what that results in is that we end up with politicians who must be all things to all people in order to get re-elected. The structures of the electoral system in itself means that populism wins out the day, any conviction politician with a real vision and a plan will get brushed aside in favour of a politician who'll tell them that if he gets elected child benefit is going up and income taxes are coming down and then not be able to deliver on it.

Indeed. But didn’t we elect to keep Proportional Representation in the referendum of 1968?

We also elect the politicians that get into office and seem to fall for the same old politics of promise time and time again, i.e. benefits today that we are told we won’t have to pay for. Until that is, reality kicks in and everything goes pear shaped, like in the previous administration in Ireland or the new Labour administration in the UK, after which we elect someone else to clean up the mess.

Hence the quote from Alexis de Tocqueville (and others along the same lines)

In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve

Taxburden carrier · 16-04-2014 12:17pm

Ironically a lot of TDs have convictions.

shanered · 16-04-2014 12:22pm

I have to say i agree with vincent. And keep up the quotes!

golfwallah · 16-04-2014 1:20pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you look at the powers that local authority councillors have in reality, you might begin to think otherwise. They have very little power, beyond voting for the annual budget / striking a rate, voting on issues put to them by the minister (such as whether to have an elected Lord Mayor for Dublin) or granting of planning permission.

All other real power in local authorities is vested in the County Manager and all councillors can do is make representations to him / her to try to get things done. Councillors are also enabled to ask questions in relation to things that are not clearly visible in the council’s published material – but the solution here is more open financial reporting, etc., e.g. so that the public can see for themselves what the council is spending taxpayers money on. Then we might have more influence to ensure our taxes are spent on what we want as opposed to the wants of public officials.

Otherwise a councillors job consists of photo ops and telling us about how they successfully campaigned with the minister to retain the local post office, Garda station or whatever.

Do we really need “experienced” politicians to do this sort of thing?

Muahahaha · 16-04-2014 7:21pm

golfwallah wrote: »

Indeed. But didn’t we elect to keep Proportional Representation in the referendum of 1968?

We also elect the politicians that get into office and seem to fall for the same old politics of promise time and time again, i.e. benefits today that we are told we won’t have to pay for. Until that is, reality kicks in and everything goes pear shaped, like in the previous administration in Ireland or the new Labour administration in the UK, after which we elect someone else to clean up the mess.

Hence the quote from Alexis de Tocqueville (and others along the same lines)

Yeah AFAIK the referendum back in 1968 was on weather to change to a majoritarian system like the UK. It was FF who held it because their polling numbers at the time suggested a majoritarian system would suit them a lot better than PR STV which often threw up coalitions. It was seen a a bit of a stroke and power grab at the time and the people called them out on it and voted it down.

Fast forward though to now and I'd would actually be in favour of a majoritarian system with single member constituencies over our PR STV system. It might be the case in the UK that the MP who represents your area isn't the guy you voted for or you don't agree with his ideology. But you can still go to that MP if you've a problem, he doesn't know you didn't vote for him and he still represents you.

And at least you're getting someone who is incentivised to have convictions, when you're in an election with only one seat available ideas, convictions and the ability to deliver on them are the main selling points locally. And it also gives certainty, if there's a Tory MP representing the area you live in then know what to expect and if Labour are in power then the same. If you don't like living in a Tory stronghold then move and vice versa. Having single member constituencies also makes things far more transparent- one person is in charge of the entire district and they are completely accountable, at the next election voters can ask themselves if their area and services has improved or disproved over the last few years. If things have gotten worse well then there's only one person who is responsible for that and voters can vote accordingly.

Whereas in the Irish system if a new school gets built we always end up with 5 sitting TDs all claiming they built it and blagging their way to claiming credit for something someone else got done. Our system has so many politicians that it is virtually impossible for a voter to discern which ones are actually doing good work and which ones are along for the gravy train ride. In a majoritarian single member constituency model accountability for the entire area rests with one person and if they mess up then the evidence will be all around for everyone to see. It's not a perfect system by any stretch but introducing it here would go a long way to getting rid of the gombeen politician who promises all things to all people in order to pick up first and preference votes but then can never deliver on his promises.

An Irish gombeen politician wouldn't last pissing time in the UK system, they wouldn't be able to shift the blame for service delivery failures onto anyone else and they'd be visibly accountable for the area they represent. As things stand here it suits the Irish gombeen politician to have other sitting TDs in their area, that way they can steal credit for their successes and shift the blame for their own failures. It doesn't matter what the reality on the ground is, perception is everything in politics so under our PR STV system a politicians time is actually better spent convincing the public that they work hard for the community than it is of actually working hard for the community.

Our electoral system is structurally flawed and IMO nothing will change in this country until we fix it. Sadly the Constitutional Convention deemed it to be fine as it is and the topic is no longer on the reform agenda. But at the end of the day PR STV produces the type of politicians we see now, the structures of it are such that our politicians purposely lack conviction. Convictions alienate 50% of your audience and a PR STV system means that a politician needs to woo 100% of his audience, therefore conviction politics isn't possible.

I think Tony Blair put conviction quite well in respect of the British system when he said "When you decide, you divide". For all his Iraq failings Blair had a vision and a conviction to fix the NHS after years of Tory neglect, nowadays all commentators and the general public agree that Labour under his leadership made the NHS great again. That's what good governance is, led by politicians who have a vision and the conviction and skill to implement it. But PR STV will never allow for that type of politician, because the structures of it do not allow those type of politicians and leaders to get elected in the first place. The structures of PR-STV favour blaggers and liars over do-ers and go-getters.

Ireland and Malta are the only two democracies in the entire world who use PR STV. Malta also suffers gombeen politicians in abundance. This is not by accident, it is by design.

golfwallah · 17-04-2014 8:38am

In yesterday’s Irish Times, Vincent Brown again recounts the flaws that he has observed in our political system over the past 20 years: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/twenty-years-a-commenting-some-things-don-t-change-1.1763063?page=1

Unfortunately the main solution he puts forward is rather limited – to the right to demand constitutional change if 100,000 people sign up for it (subject to referendum in certain cases).

I don’t detect much demand, either, right now for a change in the Proportional Representation voting system. Nor is there any real demand for other fundamental change that might re-focus politicians’ attention from gaining and retaining office towards addressing and resolving the issues that matter to most voters, such as providing:
• A more sustainable economic environment in which citizens can make a reasonably good living and have access to more affordable housing
• More real day to day transparency / accountability starting with public administration, enabling voters to make more informed decisions about the performance of those in office.

Maybe we need another huge crisis to act as a catalyst for the leadership to emerge that will implement the changes needed for a fairer and more sustainable society?

steddyeddy · 21-04-2014 2:40am

touts wrote: »

It's amazing how this applies even to a little power. Last night I had a middle aged greying man arrive at my door canvassing. His second name was distinctive and vaguely familiar and he rabbitted on about wanting my vote. Then up the drive strode this 77 year old infamous local councillor and the name twigged. That gob****e broke into this well rehersed speel about how he was retiring after 30 years serving the people of the area and now it was time to hand over to the next generation and get some young blood into the council. And the best young person was, of course, his son. His son is 45 if he is a day. The only time I heard of his father in the last 5 years was when he was in the newspapers for proposing the most insane, populist, small town, gombeen motions at the council. This utter eegit held on to power for 12 years beyond the normal retirement age for other jobs. And when he finally decided to hand that power over to a fresh face it was the loyal middle aged son who has trotted around behind him for years and believed he had a god ordained right to inherit the power. The sad thing is he'll probably get in.

But I suppose the most annoying thing is not that these families hold onto the power for so long. It is that they do so little with it. There is no vision. No plan for the next 10 years. No idea on how to make the most of local resources to make the local area better. It's all Fill Mrs O'Mahoney's pothole and she'll get us 10 votes. Get a sign up in that estate and that'll be 20 votes. Go to this funeral and it'll be 50 votes. They can best be described as busy fools. And when they do stand up and fight for us it is all tilting at national windmills. "Cllr Ryan condems the Anglo Bailout" "Cllr McCarthy shocked at Garda taping". "Cllr Power calls on Minister to reform Medical Cards". Nothing they say will make a difference because noone with real power in Dublin cares about them. Their power does not apply in these areas yet they insist in wasting it trying to grab headlines. The limited power is exercised not to improve the overall lot of the people but to maximise the votes at the next election.

I suppose all I can say is more fool us for voting them in.

Brilliant post.

walrusgumble · 23-04-2014 5:09pm

golfwallah wrote: »

Officially, it's not a job for life - but, in reality, look at our long tradition of Irish family political dynasties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Families_in_the_Oireachtas

And yes, constituents have the power to throw politicians out of their jobs, as happened to many FF TDs in the last general election (although quite a few avoided that humiliation by not going forward).

But the problem of political dynasties still remains, acting as a deterrent to conviction based politicians, with a few notable exceptions, for example, Leo Varadker, Mary Lou McDonald, Stephen Donnelly or Clare Daly.

Whether you like him or not, Alan Shatter also falls into the Conviction based Politican. He had a very nice life, commerically, outside of politics. He doesn't go for populism (unless it is what he genuinely believes in)

Bar his coldness, and his arrogance and his pride (never apolise for anything) Shatter does not do filling the potholes etc. Hence, why he always struggles to get a seat in a politically violatile Constituency. I doubt he has too many Councillors keeping the ear on the ground, on his behalf. He also does not care what others think of him, whether his voters or his colleagues.

Mary Lou was once a Fianna Fáiler, by the way, so I wonder could you not classify her as a careerist

Leo, hmmm, he reaks of careerists. His vision is that he suits himself, ie the middle class. However, for now, at least you know where he stands on policy etc .

Irish TDs - Conviction Politics or Jobs for Life?

Comments