Preferential treatment in the Dáil

nice_guy80 · 22-10-2014 8:54pm #1

I'm disgusted at the continued behaviour of the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil towards Independent TDs.

His blue shirt really comes out in some of his dealings and declarations.

The rules of the Dáil are also completely weighted in favour of political parties.

Cookie_Monster · 22-10-2014 11:41pm

Why does that surprise you though, a FG cc is always going to be pro FG, same with a labour one or a FF one etc. They're never going to be a fully neutral party to the proceedings.

hatrickpatrick · 22-10-2014 11:45pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why does that surprise you though, a FG cc is always going to be pro FG, same with a labour one or a FF one etc. They're never going to be a fully neutral party to the proceedings.

That's like saying an Irish referee cannot be neutral if either Ireland is playing, or the match will determine Ireland's position within the group.

In other words, if Barrett isn't mature enough to put his party allegiance aside in order to be a chairman, then he shouldn't be a chairman.

His behavior over the last few days has been an absolute disgrace, starting with his singling out of Mary Lou during the budget speeches for behavior he remained utterly silent about when government TDs engaged in it. His behavior this afternoon was no better.

If I ever get the opportunity to vote for him again, he'll be going from getting #3 or #4 to getting no number at all.

Cookie_Monster · 23-10-2014 2:39am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In other words, if Barrett isn't mature enough to put his party allegiance aside in order to be a chairman, then he shouldn't be a chairman.

welcome to politics in Ireland, regardless of the issue there are very very few who will put their allegiance aside for anything whether they believe in it or not. In fact the only time they tend to is if their religious beliefs get in the way of progressive legislation.

FreudianSlippers · 23-10-2014 11:03am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

welcome to politics in Ireland, regardless of the issue there are very very few who will put their allegiance aside for anything whether they believe in it or not. In fact the only time they tend to is if their religious beliefs get in the way of progressive legislation.

It's the same everywhere. I think Australia just had a recent major issue with their Speaker of the House.

Godge · 23-10-2014 3:36pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I'm disgusted at the continued behaviour of the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil towards Independent TDs.

His blue shirt really comes out in some of his dealings and declarations.

The rules of the Dáil are also completely weighted in favour of political parties.

To be fair to the Ceann Comhairle, the problem yesterday was that the technical group wanted to keep their own little club without Lucinda in it but the rules don't allow for that and any independent TD can join the technical group.

A bit unfair on him on this occasion.

hatrickpatrick · 23-10-2014 7:28pm

Godge wrote: »

To be fair to the Ceann Comhairle, the problem yesterday was that the technical group wanted to keep their own little club without Lucinda in it but the rules don't allow for that and any independent TD can join the technical group.

A bit unfair on him on this occasion.

The problem was that he refused to allow the Taoiseach to make a comment on it.

Either way, the rules regarding speaking rights and the technical group are in serious need of overhaul. It should be obvious why a group of former government TDs trying to join it will cause controversy - members are worried that their speaking rights will be taken by members who still have personal allegiances to the government parties, thereby decreasing the speaking time of the opposition as an entity.

Rather than fighting over the technical group, the whole BS about "7 members or less" needs to be struck down from the standing orders and independent TDs automatically given the same rights as aligned TDs. The public is now voting for independents more so than any other group, so arguably the public will is that independents be allowed to represent them in an equal manner with how party members are allowed to.

In other words, if Independents are gaining a large chunk of the vote, Dail rules giving preference to party structures do not reflect the type of governance the people are asking for.

conorh91 · 23-10-2014 8:18pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

independent TDs automatically given the same rights as aligned TDs.

Why?

Paddy represents FG in Dublin Bay, as one of 80 FG TDs.
Josie is an Independent representing Dublin Central.

Can you seriously be suggesting that Paddy's speaking time should be 1/80th of Josie's?

I understand that many people favour independents, but the idea that every single Independent should get the same speaking time as the biggest party is just unworkable and wrong.

Godge · 23-10-2014 8:32pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The problem was that he refused to allow the Taoiseach to make a comment on it.

Either way, the rules regarding speaking rights and the technical group are in serious need of overhaul. It should be obvious why a group of former government TDs trying to join it will cause controversy - members are worried that their speaking rights will be taken by members who still have personal allegiances to the government parties, thereby decreasing the speaking time of the opposition as an entity.

Rather than fighting over the technical group, the whole BS about "7 members or less" needs to be struck down from the standing orders and independent TDs automatically given the same rights as aligned TDs. The public is now voting for independents more so than any other group, so arguably the public will is that independents be allowed to represent them in an equal manner with how party members are allowed to.

In other words, if Independents are gaining a large chunk of the vote, Dail rules giving preference to party structures do not reflect the type of governance the people are asking for.

There are so many contradictions in that, it doesn't make sense.

hatrickpatrick · 23-10-2014 10:42pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Why?

Paddy represents FG in Dublin Bay, as one of 80 FG TDs.
Josie is an Independent representing Dublin Central.

Can you seriously be suggesting that Paddy's speaking time should be 1/80th of Josie's?

I understand that many people favour independents, but the idea that every single Independent should get the same speaking time as the biggest party is just unworkable and wrong.

In my view the standing orders shouldn't reference parties, but TDs. It shouldn't make a difference whether someone is aligned or not, to their rights as a public representative.

Godge · 23-10-2014 10:56pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view the standing orders shouldn't reference parties, but TDs. It shouldn't make a difference whether someone is aligned or not, to their rights as a public representative.

So every TD gets a change to ask the Taoiseach a question every day? Leader's questions would go on for 7 or 8 hours, when would the Taoiseach or anyone else get to do anything else?

hatrickpatrick · 28-10-2014 4:09pm

Godge wrote: »

So every TD gets a change to ask the Taoiseach a question every day? Leader's questions would go on for 7 or 8 hours, when would the Taoiseach or anyone else get to do anything else?

There are plenty of ways one could devise a speaking roster without showing preference to party structures. Every TD in the Dail is a public representative, the idea that some of those should be allowed to represent the public more than others is absurd.

hatrickpatrick · 28-10-2014 4:11pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Why?

Paddy represents FG in Dublin Bay, as one of 80 FG TDs.
Josie is an Independent representing Dublin Central.

Can you seriously be suggesting that Paddy's speaking time should be 1/80th of Josie's?

Not at all. The Dail standing orders with regard to speaking time etc shouldn't recognize affiliation as a factor. A TD is a TD.

I understand that many people favour independents, but the idea that every single Independent should get the same speaking time as the biggest party is just unworkable and wrong.

Forget about talking about independents and parties. Every TD should be afforded the same opportunity to represent the public. There are plenty of ways to implement this without giving parties preferential treatment.

oscarBravo · 28-10-2014 5:22pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There are plenty of ways one could devise a speaking roster without showing preference to party structures.

Yes: every TD gets 0.6% of the available speaking time.

This would mean that Fine Gael TDs would, collectively, get to speak 41.6% of the time; Labour 20.5% of the time; Fianna Fáil 12%, Sinn Féin 8.4% and any given independent would be entitled to 21 seconds of every hour of speaking time.

Was that what you had in mind?

Godge · 28-10-2014 8:51pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes: every TD gets 0.6% of the available speaking time.

This would mean that Fine Gael TDs would, collectively, get to speak 41.6% of the time; Labour 20.5% of the time; Fianna Fáil 12%, Sinn Féin 8.4% and any given independent would be entitled to 21 seconds of every hour of speaking time.

Was that what you had in mind?

Of course not, only those who oppose the system should be allowed to speak.

It is an incredibly naive idea. Presumably he has never researched the filibusting issue. Imagine if you couldn't have the vote of budget measures until everyone had their hour to respond to the Minister for Finance's hour. No increase in cigarette prices for months, budget would have to be in about May to allow time for everyone as well as time for every other issue.

Sand · 28-10-2014 9:40pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes: every TD gets 0.6% of the available speaking time.

This would mean that Fine Gael TDs would, collectively, get to speak 41.6% of the time; Labour 20.5% of the time; Fianna Fáil 12%, Sinn Féin 8.4% and any given independent would be entitled to 21 seconds of every hour of speaking time.

Was that what you had in mind?

Most TDs dont even show up for the Dail, let alone request speaking time. To the extent that there are deals to ensure all sides can be absent doing electoral work without threatening the governments majority.

I think treating TD requests for speaking time equally without reference to their parties, but within other reasonable rules isn't going to end up with the fall of civilisation.

Either a TDs mandate is respected, or it isn't.

hatrickpatrick · 29-10-2014 12:15am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes: every TD gets 0.6% of the available speaking time.

This would mean that Fine Gael TDs would, collectively, get to speak 41.6% of the time; Labour 20.5% of the time; Fianna Fáil 12%, Sinn Féin 8.4% and any given independent would be entitled to 21 seconds of every hour of speaking time.

Was that what you had in mind?

There are other ways a roster could be drawn up. A committee-like system could be put in place for example, in which TDs could express an interest in particular upcoming debates and so on. Just one idea - there are tons of ways the Dail could be run without recognizing party structures as part of the actual Dail system itself. What TDs choose to do in terms of whips and alignment is their own business, but the Dail as an institution should be neutral on the matter and regard a public representative as a public representative.

Why do you believe an independent TD with a mandate from the people should be given less rights than an aligned TD with a mandate from the people? They're both legitimately elected to the Dail by the electorate - why should one be treated as a second class representative?

Godge wrote: »

Of course not, only those who oppose the system should be allowed to speak.

Sure, because no Independent TD has ever supported the system. :rolleyes:

It is an incredibly naive idea. Presumably he has never researched the filibusting issue. Imagine if you couldn't have the vote of budget measures until everyone had their hour to respond to the Minister for Finance's hour. No increase in cigarette prices for months, budget would have to be in about May to allow time for everyone as well as time for every other issue.

I'm well aware of filibusters and the problems they post in the United States for example. But unlike you, I regard it as an equally serious problem when some legitimate representatives of the public are denied equal rights with others because they are not aligned with one party or another. It's absurd.

petronius · 29-10-2014 1:01pm

The Dail - is becoming a Joke,
the way the budget was announced and the disrespect of the ministers by leaving
the partisan behaviour of ceann comhairle - the chair should be independent but despite pretence is patently not
the way the Labour-Fine Gael collation bull doze legislation through - the setting up of irish water for example!
is an affront to democracy

The_Captain · 31-10-2014 11:35am

I think the idea is good, but any system put in place is going to be stretched and abused by the largest party for their own gain.

If it was a case that you had to register an interest in an upcoming debate or anything like that, you'd just have every Fine Gael TD expressing an interest in things that show the government in a postive light

If you had to apply for speaking time, all Fine Gael TDs would apply and use it to talk about how great Enda Kenny is and bash the other parties.

Godge · 31-10-2014 12:25pm

The_Captain wrote: »

I think the idea is good, but any system put in place is going to be stretched and abused by the largest party for their own gain.

If it was a case that you had to register an interest in an upcoming debate or anything like that, you'd just have every Fine Gael TD expressing an interest in things that show the government in a postive light

If you had to apply for speaking time, all Fine Gael TDs would apply and use it to talk about how great Enda Kenny is and bash the other parties.

Every Fine Gael TD would also express an interest in things that show the government in a negative light and go and spend hours talking about the wonderful other things the government had done. Finally some independent from the back end of nowhere would get to speak at 4 a.m. and nobody would be listening any more.

the groutch · 01-11-2014 7:38pm

what annoys me is that Barrett automatically gets returned at the next election, another 5 years pay and pension sitting on the backbenches.

hatrickpatrick · 01-11-2014 7:55pm

Godge wrote: »

Every Fine Gael TD would also express an interest in things that show the government in a negative light and go and spend hours talking about the wonderful other things the government had done. Finally some independent from the back end of nowhere would get to speak at 4 a.m. and nobody would be listening any more.

Godge what solution would you put forward in that case? Do you at least accept that treating some democratically elected TDs as second class citizens is profoundly undemocratic?

Godge · 01-11-2014 8:10pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Godge what solution would you put forward in that case? Do you at least accept that treating some democratically elected TDs as second class citizens is profoundly undemocratic?

Political parties filled with like-minded candidates putting forward their policies to the electorate.

A ragbag of independents is no use to anyone. You cannot run a country that way.

In effect modifications of the current system. I would prefer a PR/List system like some of those in central Europe. They allow for multiple parties but also for local representation.

hatrickpatrick · 01-11-2014 8:16pm

Godge wrote: »

Political parties filled with like-minded candidates putting forward their policies to the electorate.

That's not what I was asking you about. How do you propose to address the current situation in the Dail whereby some elected representatives are treated as second class citizens, or do you regard this as acceptable?

A ragbag of independents is no use to anyone. You cannot run a country that way.

In your opinion. Evidence would denote that many disagree with you, myself included.

In effect modifications of the current system. I would prefer a PR/List system like some of those in central Europe. They allow for multiple parties but also for local representation.

I respect your opinion, and wholeheartedly disagree with it. A list system would cement the political party as an integral part of the political system, which is moving in the opposite direction I'd like to see us move in, but this is merely a difference of opinion.

Godge · 01-11-2014 8:24pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's not what I was asking you about. How do you propose to address the current situation in the Dail whereby some elected representatives are treated as second class citizens, or do you regard this as acceptable?

In your opinion. Evidence would denote that many disagree with you, myself included.

I respect your opinion, and wholeheartedly disagree with it. A list system would cement the political party as an integral part of the political system, which is moving in the opposite direction I'd like to see us move in, but this is merely a difference of opinion.

There is no evidence from any country in the world that a ragtag group of independents could form a stable government.

There is evidence that there are some people on these boards who have a different opinion but have nothing to back up their opinion.

The two are not comparable.

hatrickpatrick · 01-11-2014 8:26pm

Godge wrote: »

There is no evidence from any country in the world that a ragtag group of independents could form a stable government.

There is evidence that there are some people on these boards who have a different opinion but have nothing to back up their opinion.

The two are not comparable.

You are once again dodging the substance of what I'm asking. How would you propose to address the current democratic deficit in which some elected representatives are treated as second class citizens when compared to others in the Dail?

Godge · 01-11-2014 8:37pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You are once again dodging the substance of what I'm asking. How would you propose to address the current democratic deficit in which some elected representatives are treated as second class citizens when compared to others in the Dail?

They are not treated as second class citizens, they have the same rights as all other TDs.

hatrickpatrick · 02-11-2014 5:56am

Godge wrote: »

They are not treated as second class citizens, they have the same rights as all other TDs.

This is demonstrably false, and I find it bizarre that you would attempt to argue this after previously arguing in favour of Oscar's argument which sets out why in his opinion it is a good thing.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/proceduraldocuments/StandingOrders2007_English_and_Irish.pdf

Standing order number 116 is of particular importance (and is the standing order I would argue needs to be revoked in order to call any political system reform meaningful), as are several immediately succeeding it. More generally, do a search of the document for the word "group" or "groups" in order to find more examples of the standing orders recognizing party structures explicitly when granting rights, and not merely TDs.

oscarBravo · 02-11-2014 6:51am

My point was that any rule that guarantees any TD more than 0.6% of the available speaking time must necessarily do so at the expense of other TDs. If you want all TDs treated equally, regardless of party affiliation, then it's a 0.6% rule. If you want independents to get more than 0.6%, you'll have to explain how it would work and why it's fair.

Preferential treatment in the Dáil

Comments