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
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Het-Field wrote: »
    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.
    Then someone like Bertie comes along... and guess who he picks as his cabinet when given a blank canvass! And not to mention all the state boards he can appoint to!


  • Options
    #33
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Oh, a promo for the debate :p
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59feMi_wj2o


    EDIT: What was that phrase that McDowell used to describe the Seanad?

    "A cross between a cradle and a convalescent home" or something.


  • Options
    #34
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    The_Minister wrote: »

    EDIT: What was that phrase that McDowell used to describe the Seanad?

    "A cross between a cradle and a convalescent home" or something.
    But McDowell also came out against the FG proposal to abolish it.


  • Options
    #35
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    The_Minister wrote: »
    Oh, a promo for the debate :p
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59feMi_wj2o


    EDIT: What was that phrase that McDowell used to describe the Seanad?

    "A cross between a cradle and a convalescent home" or something.

    I can understand most people invited to attend but Dan Boyle? A failed politician? Whose place in the Seanad was payment from Bertie for Green party support???


  • Options
    #36
    Melange
    Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭Melange


    Somewhat disappointed to see the lack of a FG representative, tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    bryanw wrote: »
    But McDowell also came out against the FG proposal to abolish it.

    He used to favour abolishing it in the early 90s - he changed his view in recent times - no idea why.

    Ask him after the event.


  • Options
    #38
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Melange wrote: »
    Somewhat disappointed to see the lack of a FG representative, tbh.

    There was a FG representative, but they cancelled.

    After that we tried hard to get FG to send someone.

    We even delayed our press release to give them more time.

    They just couldn't get anyone - I think everyone is holding their breath after the recent scuffles.


  • Options
    #39
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    The_Minister wrote: »
    There was a FG representative, but they cancelled.

    After that we tried hard to get FG to send someone.

    We even delayed our press release to give them more time.

    They just couldn't get anyone - I think everyone is holding their breath after the recent scuffles.
    Surely it would be in their interest to promote their policies that they have put resources into coming up with. Given that they are the only ones coming up with any at the moment. And trying to regain credibility after the recent debacle.


  • Options
    #40
    Butch Cassidy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭Butch Cassidy


    bryanw wrote: »
    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.


    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.
    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.

    The party whip system is essentially someone else interfering with one's vote. It's like the father of a family telling the people that live under "his roof" who to vote for.

    As far as I know FG recently published some reform materials on the Oireachtas one of which included doing away with the whip system or at least limiting it. Personally I think it should be legislated for so that elected reps are voting with their conscience and with they support rather than what they're told to vote for. The whip system is an affront to democracy really and it gives you bloody bizarre incidents like Paul Gogarty saying he doesn't believe in what he's voting for but he'll take it on the chin anyway and lose his seat.


    With regards to the Seanad: Why not appoint people to it in the same that people are appointed to juries?


  • Options
    #41
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Butch Cassidy wrote: »
    The party whip system is essentially someone else interfering with one's vote. It's like the father of a family telling the people that live under "his roof" who to vote for.

    As far as I know FG recently published some reform materials on the Oireachtas one of which included doing away with the whip system or at least limiting it. Personally I think it should be legislated for so that elected reps are voting with their conscience and with they support rather than what they're told to vote for. The whip system is an affront to democracy really and it gives you bloody bizarre incidents like Paul Gogarty saying he doesn't believe in what he's voting for but he'll take it on the chin anyway and lose his seat.
    This party whip system is ridiculous alright, in that it basically means that the government can ram through legislation, but I would not be in favour of forcing people to not to associate to parties. It's up to the individual whether to follow the whip or to break ranks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Butch Cassidy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭Butch Cassidy


    The_Minister wrote: »
    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.



    ....and Sinn Fein.
    The_Minister wrote: »
    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?


    Who exactly are the Liberal Society? I mean who is behind it? I know it's a public advocacy group etc. etc. but who's financing this thing, paying the bills like and who's steering it? I've heard it's an element of the former PDs rising from the ashes and with the inclusion of McDowell you certainly can't shake the association there.

    What other policies have the Liberals got if any or what policies else beside unelected ministers have ye got? What is your view on bank bailouts, social welfare, ministerial cars and pensions, the HSE etc.
    Ye are very sketchy on details tbh.


  • Options
    #43
    Butch Cassidy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭Butch Cassidy


    Is financing of political parties and donations on the agenda here?

    Last year was a year with a local election, Euro election and a referendum on Lisbon and the three largest parties disclosed how much money donated to them? Answer: nil. http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/AnnualDisclosures/Disclosureofdonationsbyanindividualdonor/ Of course it's only donations of over €5,078.95 that are required to be disclosed.


    Some kinda of accountability of elected representatives would be another issue surely. All too often parties publish manifestos with a list of various promises and ideas and there's feck all comeback for the people if/when these promises are reneged on.


  • Options
    #44
    Butch Cassidy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭Butch Cassidy


    bryanw wrote: »
    This party whip system is ridiculous alright, in that it basically means that the government can ram through legislation, but I would not be in favour of forcing people to not to associate to parties. It's up to the individual whether to follow the whip or to break ranks.

    Introducing reforms so that TDs do what they're supposed to do is not forcing people to not associate - that's a bit of obsfucation there if you ask me anyway. TDs are elected to represent people on a national level on national issues not on local issues about dog poo outside someone's house or some rowdy neighbour having a party of a weekend.

    It's up to the individual? Eh clearly it's not because they all follow the whip anyway and anyone who doesn't is whipped out of the party!


  • Options
    #45
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Butch Cassidy wrote: »
    The whip system is an affront to democracy really and it gives you bloody bizarre incidents like Paul Gogarty saying he doesn't believe in what he's voting for but he'll take it on the chin anyway and lose his seat.

    The whip system did not lead to that, Gogartys lack of integrity led to that. He still had a choice, he chose to tow the party line at the expense of his constituents, the general electorate and his conscience. He should most definitely lose his seat for that

    Re the topic, there needs to be a clear separation of national and local government, a reduction in the number of public representatives and councils and some degree of freedom to raise revenue locally


  • Options
    #46
    whatawaster
    Registered Users Posts: 12,906 ✭✭✭✭whatawaster


    I would like to see something like the following:

    Dail

    50% elected representatives, 50% party lists

    Elected representatives – I’d like to see 1 elected TD per 100,000 people approximately. This would mean around 45 elected representatives. Much larger constituencies – split the country into maybe 10 regions, and elect 4/5 TDs per region.

    Based on the national split of party vote, the same number would also be selected via a list.

    This would mean around 90 TDs. A good number, I think.

    Cut TD’s salaries by 5% a year for the next 4 years.
    Change their salaries so it’s based on attendance in the Dail. Watching the no-confidence debate recently was shocking. 90% of TDs only wait around for their own party leader to speak and then they dash off. Even Cowen left at one stage. It’s a disgrace. How many of them made their way to the bar? They should be paid a salary, from which we should deduct uncertified time away. They should have to clock in and out of the Dail chamber. All TDs should be expected to sit for a certain number of hours each week. Expenses should be limited and must all be vouched.

    Senate

    I’d like to see this made up of around 40/50 members.

    Half of it from the party list system, based on the national split of party vote, as above.
    Half of it made up of “experts” from different fields. Try and keep the appointments as non-political as possible – ie: the government have no say in these selections.
    Economists, Environmental experts, Scientists, etc.

    They should have some power to block/delay Dail legislation. Maybe 66% or 75% of the senate vote is needed to do so.

    I’d like to limit the number of terms senators can sit for also.
    No candidate who fails to be elected in the Dail elections can be selected via a list for either the Dail or the Senate for longer than one term.

    Local Government

    Regional councils based on the 10 or so Dail constituencies. Each represent between 400,000 – 500,000 people and should have between 40-50 members. Each should be paid modest salaries and allowed basic expenses. Smaller local and town councils beneath them with obviously less powers.


  • Options
    #47
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    whatawaster wrote: »
    Based on the national split of party vote, the same number would also be selected via a list.

    This would mean around 90 TDs. A good number, I think.

    Except that that would mean that (really) a government would be formed with about 47-50 TDs, and from that you have to find the 15 ministers, various ministers for state and committee chairs.

    If you don't seperate out the legislature and executive as in the OP, then any reduction in TD numbers will lead to a lower standard of minister, as the candidate pool will be shrunk as well.


  • Options
    #48
    whatawaster
    Registered Users Posts: 12,906 ✭✭✭✭whatawaster


    The_Minister wrote: »
    Except that that would mean that (really) a government would be formed with about 47-50 TDs, and from that you have to find the 15 ministers, various ministers for state and committee chairs.

    If you don't seperate out the legislature and executive as in the OP, then any reduction in TD numbers will lead to a lower standard of minister, as the candidate pool will be shrunk as well.

    Firstly, I think there are far too many ministers for state anyway, so cuts could be made there.
    Secondly, ministers could, and imo should, be drawn from both houses, and particularly from the non-party “experts” I’d like to see involved in the Senate.


  • Options
    #49
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Butch Cassidy wrote: »
    Who exactly are the Liberal Society? I mean who is behind it? I know it's a public advocacy group etc. etc. but who's financing this thing, paying the bills like and who's steering it? I've heard it's an element of the former PDs rising from the ashes and with the inclusion of McDowell you certainly can't shake the association there.
    McDowell is an invite as are all of the other speakers. Finance is being provided by the members for the debate and, be assured, spending is prudent.
    Butch Cassidy wrote:
    What other policies have the Liberals got if any or what policies else beside unelected ministers have ye got? What is your view on bank bailouts, social welfare, ministerial cars and pensions, the HSE etc.
    Ye are very sketchy on details tbh.
    The Liberals are in favour of promoting liberal views and values. We believe the government has to reign in public spending on Anglo and INBS and allow the people to have a say similar to Iceland. Ministerial cars are an unnecessary frill in a small country and its wrong that pensions can be received before retirement age by some and not others. The Liberals wish to promote active citizenship, respect for individual liberties and to give power back to the people through political reform. This would include teaching of civics in school, as this is a bit hit and miss these days.


  • Options
    #50
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    Butch Cassidy wrote: »
    Introducing reforms so that TDs do what they're supposed to do is not forcing people to not associate - that's a bit of obsfucation there if you ask me anyway. TDs are elected to represent people on a national level on national issues not on local issues about dog poo outside someone's house or some rowdy neighbour having a party of a weekend.

    It's up to the individual? Eh clearly it's not because they all follow the whip anyway and anyone who doesn't is whipped out of the party!
    Technically it is. But to be a member of a party (which one may so choose to do) is a freedom that should remain. It is also a freedom for the party to impose a whip. You can vote for an independent if you don't like party whips.


  • Options
    #51
    hadit2here
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭hadit2here


    Looks like they are not even going ahead with the clock system in the Dail ... Rolling back on it ...


    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politicians-will-collect-expenses-without-clocking-in-123551.html

    Somehow I am not surprised .... at some stage the Irish will just vote for extreme candidates (out of frustration)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    hadit2here wrote: »

    Somehow I am not surprised .... at some stage the Irish will just vote for extreme candidates (out of frustration)

    I predict Sinn Féin will do very well in the next election. Perhaps up to as many as 20 seats. Labour with around 40-50. Fine Gael will implode soon enough, I'm pretty confident of that.


  • Options
    #53
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    again who's argueing against the motion, i dunno having a chair who is a walter mitty and in favor of internment,kidnap,torture and belligerent wars doesn't give a good impression of the liberal party


  • Options
    #54
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    I'd agree with everything The Minister said in his OP.

    I think a more federated system would be good. It would allow individual countries/cantons to make decisions for themselves. I would devolve powers of income and sales taxation to these bodies.

    Perhaps the Senate could then be turned into a "council of cantons", elected similarly to the US Senate. The principal responsibility would be the regulation of competencies of the cantons. There would be a strict constitutional framework for assigning powers ("competencies") to the federal and local governments. If, for example, the federal government wanted to give powers to the cantons it would require a majority in the Senate, whereas if they wanted to take powers from the cantons it would require a double majority in the Senate. The Senate would thus be primarily a body to uphold the autonomy of individual cantons.


    I don't know if that would actually work, or if it makes any sense. I'm no constitutional lawyer! :D


  • Options
    #55
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Phil Hogan of Fine Gael will now be joining us on the night.:)

    A great night just got better - every major party is now represented.


  • Options
    #56
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    The_Minister wrote: »
    Phil Hogan of Fine Gael will now be joining us on the night.:)

    A great night just got better - every major party is now represented.
    w00t!

    No seriously, I'd be interested to see Fine Gael sell the "New Politics" document. And also... is Sinn Fein attending? Surely they are a more major party than the Greens?


  • Options
    #57
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    bryanw wrote: »
    w00t!

    No seriously, I'd be interested to see Fine Gael sell the "New Politics" document. And also... is Sinn Fein attending? Surely they are a more major party than the Greens?

    They aren't in government :p


  • Options
    #58
    bryanw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭bryanw


    The_Minister wrote: »
    They aren't in government :p
    Yes they are. In line with the slow release strategy of the party across the whole island... :D


  • Options
    #59
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Oh, I should have added that if you want to reserve seats then e-mail debate@liberals.ie.


  • Options
    #60
    Butch Cassidy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭Butch Cassidy


    Can one not just show up?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Butch Cassidy wrote: »
    Can one not just show up?

    Oh you can - some people just like to reserve a seat to make sure they have a place - show up on time and you will be grand.

    Normally people who might really need a seat, like the elderly, like to reserve a place.


Advertisement