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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Rabbitte caught in the Independent headlights

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    The reality was 'deficit'.

    Voting a bunch of fantasists & single issue warriors wasn't going to change that

    Everybody knew there was a 'deficit', it was the way the deficit is being dealt with that is causing the problem.
    The electing of independents is a message, the way we are being governed is going to cause instability.
    Who wants to listen to message? Not Pat Rabbitte by the sound of it.


  • Options
    #63
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Everybody knew there was a 'deficit', it was the way the deficit is being dealt with that is causing the problem.
    The electing of independents is a message, the way we are being governed is going to cause instability.
    Who wants to listen to message? Not Pat Rabbitte by the sound of it.

    Because the message is incoherent. Anger is not an argument.


  • Options
    #64
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    First Up wrote: »
    You still haven't explained if or how the list system could operate within PR and barring non-party candidates would be unacceptable - and would be thrown out in the courts.

    Your "disconnected" argument is a sweeping and demonstrably innacurate generalisation.

    I don't see how your version of "shaking things up" will produce better candidates - or an electorate that recognises them. The current trend is to elect populist candidates who can promise the earth in the full knowledge they will never have to deliver on them. The system can tolerate a few of them but it isn't the way forward.


    Can you explain to me how a list system that didn't allow non-party candidates would be thrown out in the Courts? Is there a specific law, provision or something else that would be relied on?


  • Options
    #65
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    First Up wrote: »
    You still haven't explained if or how the list system could operate within PR and barring non-party candidates would be unacceptable - and would be thrown out in the courts.

    Your "disconnected" argument is a sweeping and demonstrably innacurate generalisation.

    I don't see how your version of "shaking things up" will produce better candidates - or an electorate that recognises them. The current trend is to elect populist candidates who can promise the earth in the full knowledge they will never have to deliver on them. The system can tolerate a few of them but it isn't the way forward.

    Like the previous responder can you show me how it would be challenged if non-party candidates were excluded?

    I would counter that the current government and the previous one were very good examples of the politicians becoming disconnected from the reality that their electorate were facing and have faced.

    Part of the issue of populist candidates as you put it is voting for them based on their personalities so in effect they become "Super Councillors" the list system will negate this issue and hopefully would result in more people actually reading the election policies of the various political parties rather than voting for Mick because he sorted the potholes!

    Whats your suggestions then?


  • Options
    #66
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Everybody knew there was a 'deficit', it was the way the deficit is being dealt with that is causing the problem.
    The electing of independents is a message, the way we are being governed is going to cause instability.
    Who wants to listen to message? Not Pat Rabbitte by the sound of it.

    No, not everyone knows there is a deficit.
    The left wing parties absolutely pretend its not there, even to this day.

    There is no way a deficit can be closed without cutting spending and/or revenue.

    People are only compliant with austerity when it impacts someone else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    gandalf wrote: »
    Whats your suggestions then?

    Elect competent, responsible politicians that can form a government and let them get on with the job.


  • Options
    #68
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    First Up wrote: »
    Because the message is incoherent. Anger is not an argument.

    The message from the protest and bye elections (do you need any more) is that people have had enough of cuts and extra charges. That is pretty clear and coherent to me.
    The imposition of Water Charges and the way it is being done is the deal changer for ordinary people. They have spoken in huge volumes in one weekend, it would not have mattered where the bye elections where the same story would have evolved.


  • Options
    #69
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    First Up wrote: »
    Elect competent, responsible politicians that can form a government and let them get on with the job.

    And if there are none running, what then ?


  • Options
    #70
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Godge wrote: »
    Can you explain to me how a list system that didn't allow non-party candidates would be thrown out in the Courts? Is there a specific law, provision or something else that would be relied on?

    Article 16 of the Constitution:

    Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann.


  • Options
    #71
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    gandalf wrote: »
    And if there are none running, what then ?

    I dunno - dictatorship?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    First Up wrote: »
    I dunno - dictatorship?

    Fiiiine.... I'll do it!


  • Options
    #73
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The message from the protest and bye elections (do you need any more) is that people have had enough of cuts and extra charges. That is pretty clear and coherent to me.
    The imposition of Water Charges and the way it is being done is the deal changer for ordinary people. They have spoken in huge volumes in one weekend, it would not have mattered where the bye elections where the same story would have evolved.

    So who should they vote for?


  • Options
    #74
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    First Up wrote: »
    Article 16 of the Constitution:

    Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann.

    Everyone is eligible but everyone must currently submit themselves to a nomination process. There are various ways of completing this nomination process.

    A list system would just impose another nomination process.

    There are large groups of people who are excluded from running for Dail Eireann e.g. civil servants.


  • Options
    #75
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    First Up wrote: »
    Article 16 of the Constitution:

    Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann.

    Key phrase here is "by law". A change like the one I am proposing would require legislation which once passed would satisfy that element of the constitution.


  • Options
    #76
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Godge wrote: »
    Everyone is eligible but everyone must currently submit themselves to a nomination process. There are various ways of completing this nomination process.

    A list system would just impose another nomination process.

    There are large groups of people who are excluded from running for Dail Eireann e.g. civil servants.

    You can nominate yourself. Prohibiting someone from running because they are not a member of a political party would be thrown out as unconstitutional in about 30 seconds.

    Civil Servants can run for election but if elected must either resign or take leave of absence. But they can run.


  • Options
    #77
    RGDATA!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭RGDATA!


    hfallada wrote: »
    There is very few independent candidates that have any skills to transfer into a government. None of them seem particularly well educated or have leadership skills.

    None seem well educated? What's your standard for well educated?
    I can think of a few independents with degrees, a few who were teachers (no more than our current Taoiseach and plenty of past govt. TDs), and a couple who are former members of "establishment" parties.


  • Options
    #78
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    gandalf wrote: »
    Key phrase here is "by law". A change like the one I am proposing would require legislation which once passed would satisfy that element of the constitution.

    Good luck with that.


  • Options
    #79
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    First Up wrote: »
    Good luck with that.

    And there is of course the route of a referendum which would be needed to drop the TD count to 100.

    So rather than your "can't be done its not possible" route, it is of course possible. You either tweak the law or present the electorate with the choice of changing the constitution to allow for a number of changes.


  • Options
    #80
    John_C
    Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    The biggest single problem in the political system is the concentration of power in the executive. A list system would make that worse.


  • Options
    #81
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    gandalf wrote: »
    And there is of course the route of a referendum which would be needed to drop the TD count to 100.

    So rather than your "can't be done its not possible" route, it is of course possible. You either tweak the law or present the electorate with the choice of changing the constitution to allow for a number of changes.

    Good luck with that too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    First Up wrote: »
    Good luck with that too.


    If there was one referendum which included a provision to reduce TDs to 100 while also introducing a list system which inter alia would practically guarantee none of the current parties would ever have a majority, I can see that passing very easily.


  • Options
    #83
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Godge wrote: »
    If there was one referendum which included a provision to reduce TDs to 100 while also introducing a list system which inter alia would practically guarantee none of the current parties would ever have a majority, I can see that passing very easily.

    If you wanted to design a referendum that would suffer the largest defeat in history, proposing to debar independent candidates from running for office would be it.


  • Options
    #84
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    An awful lot of main party TDs only got elected because their father or mother was a TD. Including our Taoiseach.

    In the case of one recently elected FG TD, they were elected because their sister had been a TD.

    So on that basis alone, I'd say most Independents are far more qualified to be TDs
    the recently elected Michael Fitzmaurice in Roscommon/Leitrim for example has a business that actually employs people. So he does more for job creation than most TDs.


  • Options
    #85
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    An awful lot of main party TDs only got elected because their father or mother was a TD. Including our Taoiseach.

    In the case of one recently elected FG TD, they were elected because their sister had been a TD.

    Every single TD was elected because more people voted for him or her than for other candidates. Being related to another TD doesn't make you unqualified to be one.


  • Options
    #86
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    An awful lot of main party TDs only got elected because their father or mother was a TD. Including our Taoiseach.

    In the case of one recently elected FG TD, they were elected because their sister had been a TD.

    So on that basis alone, I'd say most Independents are far more qualified to be TDs
    the recently elected Michael Fitzmaurice in Roscommon/Leitrim for example has a business that actually employs people. So he does more for job creation than most TDs.

    Does the name Healy Rae ring any bells?


  • Options
    #87
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    John_C wrote: »
    The biggest single problem in the political system is the concentration of power in the executive. A list system would make that worse.

    This. A list system cements the party as the ultimate institution of political power, rather than politically minded individuals.


  • Options
    #88
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    First Up wrote: »
    Actually it is a vote against reality.

    So "reality" is that we have to accept self serving, cronyist parties which force their TDs to vote for their crappy policies when when the vast majority of the public don't want those policies? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #89
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    gandalf wrote: »
    The constituencies stay the same but instead of voting for personalities people vote for parties and their policies. The parties submit their ranked list and the seats they win are filled according to the ranking they supply.

    There will be no non-party candidates with this system.

    So in other words, lobbying TDs against policies you don't agree with would become even more useless than it is currently thanks to the current whip system.
    You really want to turn democracy into a spectator sport, don't you?


  • Options
    #90
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    So "reality" is that we have to accept self serving, cronyist parties which force their TDs to vote for their crappy policies when when the vast majority of the public don't want those policies? :rolleyes:

    Agreed.

    The reality is independents are now more popular than ever before. Whether this is a good thing or not is merely an opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    So "reality" is that we have to accept self serving, cronyist parties which force their TDs to vote for their crappy policies when when the vast majority of the public don't want those policies? :rolleyes:

    If you are a member of a party, you endorse party policy. That's why we have parties. Nothing to do with cronyism; it's how our system of government works and it serves us well most of the time. If you think anarchy would be better, well you are entitled to your opinion. You might like to tell us where that works well.

    The last government messed up and they got voted out. The current government has repaired a lot of the damage but if you don't like what they are doing, you can vote for someone else next time.


Advertisement