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.
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.
End of centerisim in Irish politics
Options
Comments
-
Viva la independents? If the balance of power is held by independents, port barrel spending will go through the roof - they will all be falling over themselves to "deliver" for their own narrow constituencies. Tony Gregory springs to mind.
A strong party system is the only hope we have for limiting pork barrel spending in this country, and this requires a cohesive whip system that punishes party members who take the easy way out and oppose the party line.
What we need is an overhaul of the remit of the Dail to limit its say in local matters and increase the autonomy of local councils, so that pork barrel spending by TDs would be a lot more difficult simply by virtue of not being within their remit.
Look on a basic level, do you accept that the whip system as it currently stands invests absolute power in the cabinet and that this is not how a parliamentary democracy is supposed to work? The Dail is supposed to be independent of the executive and vigorously hold it to account. It's not supposed to be a tiny rubber stamp on any madness the 14 member cabinet decides to pursue.
You regard opposing the party line as "taking the easy way out", personally I view it as having serious balls - people like Lucinda Creighton, whose policies I vehemently disagree with, never the less were willing to sacrifice their Dail speaking rights in order to stand up for what they believed in. They should not have been punished for this, in an ideal system they would be able to occasionally oppose a cabinet policy without being penalized for it!
Do you really think investing this sort of absolute power in the cabinet is a good idea?
I also note that "centrism", the subject of this thread, remains undefined after several pages. :rolleyes:
I don't know why so many people are throwing around terms like "left" and "right" to be honest. They are meaningless without either social or economic context. For instance, where does a libertarian fall along the left/right divide? A Libertarian is likely to oppose left wing economic policies, but also oppose right wing social policies (right wing generally being repressively socially conservative, a la Creighton & co). So the term is meaningless, it's caused a huge amount of political BS over in the United States, and I for one can't see why so many people in Ireland say "FINALLY, we're going to have a *proper* left/right system" as if that's somehow desirable?0 -
Viva la independents? If the balance of power is held by independents, port barrel spending will go through the roof - they will all be falling over themselves to "deliver" for their own narrow constituencies. Tony Gregory springs to mind.
Tony Gregory was one TD with one vote. It was party politics with dozens of whipped votes that gave him the loot. That sort of auction politics is a symptom of Party politics, not Independents.
And I am puzzled by how people think a Dail of Independents will lead to any sort of similar side deals being done. If there is a Dail full of independents then there will be equally much less whipped Party TDs to unthinkingly approve the budgets that their Party leadership has struck with one or two independents.
If Independents are really only thinking of their own constituency, and form the majority of TDs in a Dail, then they will each be seeking their own largesse and will not unthinking approve any budget which rewards a constituency that is not their own, and they will have no Party leadership to whip them into doing so.
What will actually emerge is an Independent Dail compromising by approving a budget which is actually guided by national principles rather than party politics and regionalism. Afterall, the best way to ensure a cake is cut into even slices is to ensure the person cutting the cake takes the last slice. Independents will have an interest in representing their constituents by ensuring politics and governance is reformed so secret deals where Ministers like Kelly feather their nest with taxpayer funds (stolen from the pockets of taxpayers in every other constituency) are stopped.A strong party system is the only hope we have for limiting pork barrel spending in this country, and this requires a cohesive whip system that punishes party members who take the easy way out and oppose the party line.
Absolute nonsense. A strong party system has enabled and shored up a corrupt, corrosive and rotten political system for decades. The corruption is not that of individual TDs who are whipped - it is the inner cabal of Ministers at the top of the pyramid who are the ones who need to be limited and checked. And the Dail is failing to do so.
I read an interesting article by a UK political commentator on the rise and rise of UKIP and what was causing it. He made the interest point that the Parliament was originally conceived to represent the taxpayers/people and act as a check on the executive (the King). He noted that the Parliament has grown and grown over the centuries to the point that it deposed the executive, executed a king, won a civil war, and since then the Parliament has since become the executive whilst the UK royalty have been reduced to a ceremonial role.
With the merging of the legislature and the executive into the Parliament, an important check on the power of the executive has been lost. People who elect parties to represent them. The largest party control the executive, and the executive controls the party and thus the legislature. The people lose influence and over time become alienated from the establishment parties. The writers view was that the rise of UKIP represented an attempt by the people to take back control of the parliament from the executive - UKIP are not likely to follow David Camerons orders. They will represent their voters, and will act as check on the power of the executive.
Ireland has obviously had a different political history to the UK, but the themes are familiar. The government dominates the Dail using the whip, the Dail no longer (if it ever did) serve to represent the people by acting as a check on the executive.
Independants are the only hope to have a properly reformed Dail and government of Ireland.
@ViewAll voters are free to "punish" the candidates for a political party that engages in such behaviour IF they so choose.
Only the voters in the constituency of an independent that engages in such behaviour have the option of doing so - and as they are the beneficiaries they have little reason to do so
Doesn't actually make any difference if all parties engage in such behaviour. And they do. The people destroyed Fianna Fail and the Greens in the 2011 election for their incompetence and corruption. They are now gearing up to destroy Fine Gael and Labour for their incompetence and corruption in 2016. Fine Gael and Labour had a very simple task in 2011 - simply be less corrupt than Fianna Fail and the Greens. They couldn't manage it, which tells you all you need to know about party politics.
There is no party out there which genuinely offers honest, patriotic, transparent, accountable government. They are all simply looking to get their snouts in the trough. Electing Independents on the other hand will force reform which is badly needed.0 -
-
@View
Doesn't actually make any difference if all parties engage in such behaviour. And they do. The people destroyed Fianna Fail and the Greens in the 2011 election for their incompetence and corruption. They are now gearing up to destroy Fine Gael and Labour for their incompetence and corruption in 2016. Fine Gael and Labour had a very simple task in 2011 - simply be less corrupt than Fianna Fail and the Greens. They couldn't manage it, which tells you all you need to know about party politics.
There is no party out there which genuinely offers honest, patriotic, transparent, accountable government. They are all simply looking to get their snouts in the trough. Electing Independents on the other hand will force reform which is badly needed.
That's a rather long winded way to say you accept my contention that voters will be unable to and/or have less opportunity to express their displeasure in an Oireachtas dominated by independents.
Remember, it takes a majority of TDs to secure a pay-off for THEIR constituencies to ensure their re-election. That doesn't mean that YOUR constituency will benefit and the only displeasure you'll be able to express is that your TD wasn't sufficiently "in" with the pay-off majority. If that is the "reform" you want, fair enough, but don't pretend it is anything other than the worst aspects of our current system.0 -
That's a rather long winded way to say you accept my contention that voters will be unable to and/or have less opportunity to express their displeasure in an Oireachtas dominated by independents.
I honestly don't grasp how you took that meaning at all.Remember, it takes a majority of TDs to secure a pay-off for THEIR constituencies to ensure their re-election. That doesn't mean that YOUR constituency will benefit and the only displeasure you'll be able to express is that your TD wasn't sufficiently "in" with the pay-off majority. If that is the "reform" you want, fair enough, but don't pretend it is anything other than the worst aspects of our current system.
So there's two possibilities: Independent TDs without a whip or party discipline managing to get 80+ of themselves negotiating a deal to help themselves whilst screwing everyone else, and being able to maintain votes to get it over the line in the face of presumably ferocious resistance and public revulsion.
Or the more likely option, Independent TDs compromising by going for the option where the money goes where the policy experts say it should go, rather just to the Ministers home constituency.
You're arguing for the maintenance of the rampant existing political theft from the taxpayer for fear of a largely imaginary threat from Independents. The problem with corruption in Irish politics is at the ministerial level, not at the TD level. The Dail *should* act as a check on the corruption of the Government - instead it is whipped into enabling it.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's a rather long winded way to say you accept my contention that voters will be unable to and/or have less opportunity to express their displeasure in an Oireachtas dominated by independents.
Remember, it takes a majority of TDs to secure a pay-off for THEIR constituencies to ensure their re-election. That doesn't mean that YOUR constituency will benefit and the only displeasure you'll be able to express is that your TD wasn't sufficiently "in" with the pay-off majority. If that is the "reform" you want, fair enough, but don't pretend it is anything other than the worst aspects of our current system.
What if we're talking about national policy? For instance, let's take the new prostitution laws - the cabinet has already made up its mind, that means it's going to pass. End of discussion.
Do you think that's the right way to run a country?
If TDs were independent, we could lobby individuals and pressure them into voting one way or another. The outcome of bills presented to the Dail by the cabinet would not be a forgone conclusion, but would be defined entirely by a TD's judgement of which decision was more likely to sit well with his or her constituents.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »
If TDs were independent, we vested interests with deep pockets cwould lobby individuals and pressure them into voting one way or another. The outcome of bills presented to the Dail by the cabinet would not be a forgone conclusion, but would be defined entirely by a TD's judgement of which decision was more likely to sit well with his or her constituents get them a nice job when they retire from politics.
As numerous posters have already stated, and as you seem to insist on ignoring every time, abolishing the whip system would most likely end up with US-style politics where lobbyists with deep pockets, and not constituents, become the most influential people in policy decisions.
Either that, or a Dail of Healy-Raes, refusing to support anything unless there's a little sweetener thrown in for their home town.0 -
Given a number of studies have linked lotto fund increases to a minister's home area, irrespective of the party affiliation, it would be perhaps better to minimise the role of power and scope of government to effect such large amounts of money.
Foxes in hen-houses.0 -
Similarly, the silent majority will probably be unlikely to risk an economic meltdown which could occur if some of the more radical left of centre guys ever get their way with our taxation policies.
The radical left would have to do a heck of a lot to even equal much less out-strip the unprecedented economic meltdown precipitated while right/centrist governments have been in control.
I say take back our Fisheries Box, say shag off to European federalism, and stop paying the Bondholders immediately. We have the best land and the best food in Europe, not to mention the most fish (if it was under our own sovereign control) and a bright, technologically-savvy, literate population ~ they would still be begging to do business with us all over the world.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »As numerous posters have already stated, and as you seem to insist on ignoring every time, abolishing the whip system would most likely end up with US-style politics where lobbyists with deep pockets, and not constituents, become the most influential people in policy decisions.
Either that, or a Dail of Healy-Raes, refusing to support anything unless there's a little sweetener thrown in for their home town.
I'm honestly willing to take the chance. We already know that the current system doesn't result in politicians who implement what their constituents want them to do. Surely an alternative system which might result in this is at least worth a shot? If it doesn't work, we can move on to campaigning for some other method of ensuring accountability.0 -
Advertisement
-
FF's policy is socialist/populist0
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I'm honestly willing to take the chance. We already know that the current system doesn't result in politicians who implement what their constituents want them to do. Surely an alternative system which might result in this is at least worth a shot? If it doesn't work, we can move on to campaigning for some other method of ensuring accountability.
Trying something different is only worth a shot if it's likely that the something different will give better results.
Trying something that has been demonstrated to result in a worse system anywhere that it has been previously tried, purely in the hope that we might prove to be an exception (despite evidence such as Healy-Rae, Lowry Gregory and others that this is unlikely) is both pointless and stupid.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »Trying something different is only worth a shot if it's likely that the something different will give better results.
It's possible that it will give better results. Re-electing whipped politicians is guaranteed not to improve the political status quo. Surely the possibility of change is obviously a better option than the guarantee of no change?Trying something that has been demonstrated to result in a worse system anywhere that it has been previously tried, purely in the hope that we might prove to be an exception (despite evidence such as Healy-Rae, Lowry Gregory and others that this is unlikely) is both pointless and stupid.
It has never been tried in Ireland - the reason Healy Rae and Lowry managed to cause so much havoc was precisely because of our ridiculous "all or nothing" majority system in which one vote against the government causes a political meltdown, because the cabinet are so insistent on having absolute power. If anything, that debacle showed just how silly the whip system actually is.
I'd like to have seen how much clout they would have had in a Dail comprised entirely of unwhipped TDs wherein there was no such thing as a government majority to be maintained and one or two bills being voted against didn't automatically mean a general election. :rolleyes:0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »It's possible that it will give better results. Re-electing whipped politicians is guaranteed not to improve the political status quo. Surely the possibility of change is obviously a better option than the guarantee of no change?
Gambling the stability of the country on a very slight possibility is lunacy. If you want to put people's jobs and welfare at risk, then you need to be able to demonstrate probability, not just possibility.
When people's lives and livelihoods are at stake you need to bear in mind that the country isn't just some big social experiment where you can keep trying something new every year or two in the hope that you stumble across the right result eventually.
If you have something that works reasonably well (and despite some of the more obvious problems, the whip system generally works well for many things - including crucially providing a stable system of governance for the country), then there needs to be good evidence put forward that changes will be positive.
Saying "it might or it might not work, sure we'll try it and see" just doesn't cut it.hatrickpatrick wrote: »It has never been tried in Ireland - the reason Healy Rae and Lowry managed to cause so much havoc was precisely because of our ridiculous "all or nothing" majority system in which one vote against the government causes a political meltdown, because the cabinet are so insistent on having absolute power. If anything, that debacle showed just how silly the whip system actually is.
I'd like to have seen how much clout they would have had in a Dail comprised entirely of unwhipped TDs wherein there was no such thing as a government majority to be maintained and one or two bills being voted against didn't automatically mean a general election. :rolleyes:
A feature of any parliament that operates without a whip system is a tendency for votes to be "bought" by promises of spending/infrastructure/jobs for a hold-out representatives electoral area.
We've already demonstrated in Ireland that politicians who behave in this kind of manner are given cult-like following by voters in their area.
Yet despite all the evidence, you seem to think that voters will suddenly behave differently if we drop the whip?0 -
So there's two possibilities: Independent TDs without a whip or party discipline managing to get 80+ of themselves negotiating a deal to help themselves whilst screwing everyone else, and being able to maintain votes to get it over the line in the face of presumably ferocious resistance and public revulsion.
Or the more likely option, Independent TDs compromising by going for the option where the money goes where the policy experts say it should go, rather just to the Ministers home constituency.
Of those two options, it is the former, not the latter that is more likely.
Independent TDs are frequently there because of local opposition to the recommendations of pollicy experts that the government tries to implement - e.g. the closure of the local hospital and the concentation of services instead at a larger one. They aren't suddenly going to reverse that intense focus on the local constituency were there a majority of them. And, if they did, they would immediately be faced with the same accusations of "not doing what their constitutents want" as the current TDs face.You're arguing for the maintenance of the rampant existing political theft from the taxpayer for fear of a largely imaginary threat from Independents.
Not at all. I have never suggested that citizens should refrain from organising themelves to campaign against political corruption should they so choose. Nor have I ever suggested that our current parties couldn't be replaced should the voters so choose.
I have doubts the voters will campaign though as the number of people who are prepared to tolerate and reward such behaviour IF it benefits them seems to far out weigh the number who will oppose it.The problem with corruption in Irish politics is at the ministerial level, not at the TD level. The Dail *should* act as a check on the corruption of the Government - instead it is whipped into enabling it.
The Dail tolerates this sort of behaviour because the electorate not just tolerates it but frequently rewards it. This is a voluntary act by both the voters and the TDs since neither are under any compulsion to do so.
At the end of the day, the whip system is not mandatory, losing it isn't the end of the world as can be seen by both the number of independents and as the willingness of the electorate to return those independents to the Dail. The reason for its continuing survival, I suspect, has more to do with TDs being grateful for handy cover to hide behind when making decisisons that are unpopular.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »We'll see. I vote independent because they're unwhipped and are more likely to do as their constituents demand considering they have no party to hide behind. Nothing to do with local issues or a protest vote, just that in my view independents are more likely to directly represent their electorate in the Dail because they have to if they want to survive. It takes a lot more to bring down a party than to bring down an independent, which is why parties get away with so many flip flops, broken promises, and massively unpopular policies.
It's not the function of a government to be populist , you and the electorate need to grow up , you vote independant because they get you " free stuff" , ie what you want0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »What if we're talking about national policy? For instance, let's take the new prostitution laws - the cabinet has already made up its mind, that means it's going to pass. End of discussion.
Do you think that's the right way to run a country?
Such a decision - as with any cabinet decision - can only be implemented if the democratic majority of the TDs choose to support it.
I have no issue with democratic decisions made by the Oireachtas and am just as happy for it to accept or reject the cabinet's decisions.hatrickpatrick wrote: »If TDs were independent, we could lobby individuals and pressure them into voting one way or another. The outcome of bills presented to the Dail by the cabinet would not be a forgone conclusion, but would be defined entirely by a TD's judgement of which decision was more likely to sit well with his or her constituents.
There is nothing stopping you trying this now. You may not succeed though as TDs are happy to hide behind the whip system as it suits them to have it to deflect such actions.
Also, whether you like it or not, members of a political party have a democratic right to make decisions collectively and cast their votes based on the collective decision they make
Lest you have forgotten it, the whip system developed in response to a system where the individual MPs were largely independent. That didn't mean political nirvana though, instead the parliaments of the day, were controlled by factions dominated by the leading personality politicians of the day. Few are actively seeking a return to such a system although we may well end up drifting into it by default.0 -
Tony Gregory was one TD with one vote. It was party politics with dozens of whipped votes that gave him the loot. That sort of auction politics is a symptom of Party politics, not Independents.
What gave Gregory and Healy Rae and others the loot was the failings of the PR multi seat constituency system. I didn't notice either men having pangs of conscience.
No, it would be a Tower of Babel, with a half life of months , irish people want " free stuff " , Independants are constituency driven , it's makes for a bad system.And I am puzzled by how people think a Dail of Independents will lead to any sort of similar side deals being done. If there is a Dail full of independents then there will be equally much less whipped Party TDs to unthinkingly approve the budgets that their Party leadership has struck with one or two independents.
Give the Independants can hardly agree how to cross a road , a dail full of them will be chaotic. ( but at least the electorate are running out of people to give them increasing " free stuff" )
If Independents are really only thinking of their own constituency, and form the majority of TDs in a Dail, then they will each be seeking their own largesse and will not unthinking approve any budget which rewards a constituency that is not their own, and they will have no Party leadership to whip them into doing so.
My god pigs are lining up on the runways.What will actually emerge is an Independent Dail compromising by approving a budget which is actually guided by national principles rather than party politics and regionalism. Afterall, the best way to ensure a cake is cut into even slices is to ensure the person cutting the cake takes the last slice. Independents will have an interest in representing their constituents by ensuring politics and governance is reformed so secret deals where Ministers like Kelly feather their nest with taxpayer funds (stolen from the pockets of taxpayers in every other constituency) are stopped.
Where's all the massive corruption , unless you mean Wallace's VAT dodge or lowry,s house , funnily your electorate just keeps voting these numpties in.
Absolute nonsense. A strong party system has enabled and shored up a corrupt, corrosive and rotten political system for decades. The corruption is not that of individual TDs who are whipped - it is the inner cabal of Ministers at the top of the pyramid who are the ones who need to be limited and checked. And the Dail is failing to do so.
... English parliamentary history bit...
Ireland has obviously had a different political history to the UK, but the themes are familiar. The government dominates the Dail using the whip, the Dail no longer (if it ever did) serve to represent the people by acting as a check on the executive.
Independants are the only hope to have a properly reformed Dail and government of Ireland.
The English parliament was conceived by the ruling classes, to control the power of the king. ( see magma carter ) the views of the ordinary person didn't enter into it at all. That's a much more modern attempt to justify it.
A government must first govern , that means taking hard decisions , decisions that sometimes hurt sections of the population. Decisions that are not " fair ". That's its key role. To govern . You can't govern if you are herding cats.
@View
The Irish electorate has an equivalent age of a 4 year old , they'll elect anyone that promises " free stuff " , since " them" will pay for it.Doesn't actually make any difference if all parties engage in such behaviour. And they do. The people destroyed Fianna Fail and the Greens in the 2011 election for their incompetence and corruption. They are now gearing up to destroy Fine Gael and Labour for their incompetence and corruption in 2016. Fine Gael and Labour had a very simple task in 2011 - simply be less corrupt than Fianna Fail and the Greens. They couldn't manage it, which tells you all you need to know about party politics.
There is no party out there which genuinely offers honest, patriotic, transparent, accountable government. They are all simply looking to get their snouts in the trough. Electing Independents on the other hand will force reform which is badly needed.
Since the mid eighties they trashed each political party for " failing " to give them enough " free stuff " , now they are listening to a rag tag band of politicians promising more " free stuff " , that will then fail in due course. What will the electorate do then , vote probably for Dustin. Perhaps we should just bring the Brits or maybe the Germans back. So we could do back to scamming " them" for free stuff , We're good at that.0
Advertisement