Labour to propose cutting number of TDs

Riskymove

they don't go into much detail of course...but...

The Labour party is to propose reducing the number of full time politicians as part of a new policy document to be published shortly, its leader Eamon Gilmore has said.

Speaking at the Impact trade union conference in Portlaoise, Mr Gilmore said that between TDs and Senators and the new full-time mayors which have been proposed by the Government, the country would have between 230-240 full-time politicians.

“I think there is a need to rationalise that”, he said.

Mr Gilmore said the system of governance currently in the country dates back to the foundation of the State and he said that in the 21st century there was a need to look at this afresh “almost with a blank page”.

Mr Gilmore said the party had not yet worked out the reduction in politicians in terms of numbers. However, he said such a review would have to ask what a country with a population of 4.5 million people needed in terms of its public representation.

mike65

Pfffft! :rolleyes:

Seriously this will NOT happen, how could it? Redrawing boundaries would cause murder on its own.

MikeC101

Wouldn't have a lot of faith in this happening - he doesn't really state anywhere that the numbers would be cut, just that they need to be "rationalised" and a review made.

Though it should happen, it won't. Turkeys, christmas and all that.

There would be a lot of backbenchers who'd be waving goodbye to their expense payments, and cushy jobs. They'd never go for it.

If Labour did actually come out and make a firm proposal on this, I'd be strongly swayed in their direction.

Riskymove

while its very populist to suggest cutting TD numbers I think what we need is strengthened local government first

when people then get used to going to Councillors with real powers (or directly-elected mayors) for local issues (potholes, licences, grants etc) then we could start reducing TD numbers

with regard to boundaries I don't see a need to re-draw, just reduce number of TDs per constituency

squonk

Riskymove wrote: »

while its very populist to suggest cutting TD numbers I think what we need is strengthened local government first

when people then get used to going to Councillors with real powers (or directly-elected mayors) for local issues (potholes, licences, grants etc) then we could start reducing TD numbers

with regard to boundaries I don't see a need to re-draw, just reduce number of TDs per constituency

Here here! I was listening to a program on BBC R2 recently where one of the MPs mentioned there was about 650 MPs sitting in the House of Commons. These MPs reperesent around 60,000,000 people. This got me thinking we're vastly over represented by those standards since our 166 jokers would be representing about 15,000,000 if this was the UK. Actually it's more like 5,000,000 or so, a three fold difference.

Now, while I wouldn't propose slimming the dail down to 60 members, we could I'm sure do quite well with 80 or even 90 at a stretch! I was particularly annoyed at the time because Lenihan was doing his 'tighten your belts' speech which, let's face it, makes more sense if he got rid of some of the dead weight in his own party at the same time.

InFront

Well if you take the cube root law as the accepted figure for what the representative figure in your national parliament should be, and we say that the population of Ireland as it stands is 4, 200 000 people, then:

3√ (4, 200, 000) = 161.34

That's just a shortfall by a total of 5, so we have about the right numbers if you take the cube root law as being accurate

What's more, I genuinely do believe we need that many politicians to actually get a reasonable chance of having some intelligent people elected. I say don't touch the figures, Eamon Gilmore is engaging in opportunism.

Riskymove

you really think we need over 100 TDs either backbench or in opposition with no real power or influence on national issues?

I disagree

squonk

InFront wrote: »

Well if you take the cube root law as the accepted figure for what the representative figure in your national parliament should be, and we say that the population of Ireland as it stands is 4, 200 000 people, then:

3√ (4, 200, 000) = 161.34

That's just a shortfall by a total of 5, so we have about the right numbers if you take the cube root law as being accurate

What's more, I genuinely do believe we need that many politicians to actually get a reasonable chance of having some intelligent people elected. I say don't touch the figures, Eamon Gilmore is engaging in opportunism.

Ok, fair enough but by that rule the UK is woefuly under represented, and yet they still manage to get things done and, indeed, are a much larger economy and world power than we are. Even capping our number at 100 would still, surely allow talented people into those positions and, indeed, it might make for stronger debate at local level when elections came around, seeing as you wouldn't want a muppet representing you if he was only one of 2 or three possible candidates you could elect.

I believe right now you get good people being elected, and then you get the 'Maurice Hickey' types who are great lads around the local area but thick as treacle when it comes to national issues.

RiverWilde

With the current whip system in place, it doesn't matter a damn how many politicians we have taking up space. The Opposition can do the macarena in pink fluffy tutu's and it won't make a blind bit of difference to the current showers stranglehold on power.

When you couple that with imasculated local governance in this country we have a lovely clique that has run the ship of state onto every reef and submerged rock they can find. They then spend their time being bitchy when the opposition start pointing out the leaks in the hull and the the fact that the ship is sinking faster than the govt. would like to admit.

There are only two things that keep this shower in check - the courts - (not that doesn't stop Mary Harney from changing the law when the courts hand down the 'wrong' ruling) and the fact that every now and again they actually have to ask us voters permission to continue the charade. With a bit of luck they'll get tossed out on their ears and they'll actually have to work for a living for a change.

Riv

InFront

squonk wrote: »

Ok, fair enough but by that rule the UK is woefuly under represented, and yet they still manage to get things done and, indeed, are a much larger economy and world power than we are.

No it isn't. Do the maths. Take the population of the UK at 61 million people:

3√ (61, 000, 000) = 393.6 public representatives.

That would make the UK over-represented. It is commonly agreed that this is the case, especially with devolved governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

I believe right now you get good people being elected, and then you get the 'Maurice Hickey' types who are great lads around the local area but thick as treacle when it comes to national issues.

Take a great legal brain like Alan Shatter who is not such a character. He barely got in last time around yet his intellect and dedication are highly recognised. Cutting the Dail numbers might exclude a lot of such people who are greatly intelligent but don't have the charisma or whatever to get in on sweet talking the electorate.
This would be a great move for Fianna Fail, in other words.

Count Dooku

It will make sense only if political system will be changed to 50-50 system, like in other countries
It means that half TD's will elected in constituencies, half will be elected from parties list. It means that smaller parties will be better presented in Dail, half of TD will look on regional interests, half will worry about national issues

Joey the lips

Electioneering at it's finest I woulf say! But I am sure that when he gets into office his party collegues would think no better reward for there hard work than a failure at promotion!. Kinda daft really!

MikeC101

Joey the lips wrote: »

Electioneering at it's finest I woulf say! But I am sure that when he gets into office his party collegues would think no better reward for there hard work than a failure at promotion!. Kinda daft really!

Sums it up nicely.

What politician is going to get elected, and then go out of his way to make it harder for him to get elected again?

cm2000

This is ridiculous. That's like saying they'd legalize abortion or get rid of the Seanad. The government does not have the power to do that because representation of TD's to population, like abortion or Seanad Eireann are in our constitution and no government can change the bloody thing.

sceptre

cm2000 wrote: »

This is ridiculous. That's like saying they'd legalize abortion or get rid of the Seanad. The government does not have the power to do that because representation of TD's to population, like abortion or Seanad Eireann are in our constitution and no government can change the bloody thing.

Well, given that there's supposed to be one representative for between 20k and 30k people if memory serves and because the current ratio is something like 1:21000 or thereabouts (again if memory serves), they can drop the numbers by 40% for the next general election in the morning and still be within the constitutional rules.

cm2000

more like over 25000 with a growing population.

InFront

With increasing the ratio by 40% one would have to keep in mind the potential for increased liquidity in population distribution during unpredictable economic times. Such deviations would be particularly relevant to urban constituencies which are most effected by rural to urban migration.

nesf

Ah, Labour, bravely proposing another policy that would never get off the group. More amusing for the fact that it would screw over Labour more than the other two main parties.

nesf

InFront wrote: »

No it isn't. Do the maths. Take the population of the UK at 61 million people:

3√ (61, 000, 000) = 393.6 public representatives.

That would make the UK over-represented. It is commonly agreed that this is the case, especially with devolved governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Interesting only that one would expect something like the cube root law to not work well with very large or very small countries since it was most likely devised to work with your average 20-100 million member democracy. Though personally, I think our problems come from a pitifully weak local government rather than an abundance of TDs.

Borstal Boy

Why would we want less representation? And who's to say that just because they do something a particular way in another country, that we should follow suit? Britain is hardly the bastion of inclusive politics.

Surely having more TD's means that there is a bigger pool of talent to choose from when it comes to appointing ministers.

I lived in Australia for a number of years and there is no way I would want to see their kind of system replicated here. Voters there never get to meet their politicians, and most people feel disenfranchised by politics in general. Hence the reason for compulsory voting.

People in Ireland are engaged by politics. That's the way it should be. There's no need, whatsoever, to reduce representation.

sceptre

cm2000 wrote: »

more like over 25000 with a growing population.

Quick check from me and you're correct based on the 2006 census. It's now 25,512. Not too much room for wiggling then.

InFront wrote: »

With increasing the ratio by 40% one would have to keep in mind the potential for increased liquidity in population distribution during unpredictable economic times. Such deviations would be particularly relevant to urban constituencies which are most effected by rural to urban migration.

Not too much of a factor - every time the electoral commission does its thing it bases what it does on the most recent census figures. If half a million people suddenly moved from Dublin to Mayo for whatever reason, the boundaries almost certainly wouldn't be updated and constituencies changed till they were scheduled to do it anyway.

nesf wrote: »

Ah, Labour, bravely proposing another policy that would never get off the group. More amusing for the fact that it would screw over Labour more than the other two main parties.

Well, that's the real core, in two parts. It's unlikely to happen (I think it's reasonable to say that it won't) and yeah, if it did Labour would be the big losers. At least in the absence of the introduction of a list or part-list system. Having said that, I'm coming around to the idea of a part-list system but obviously for reasons that have nothing to do with this proposal or declaration or whatever it really is.

turgon

If only the Labour leader was willing to focus on the personnel cuts that need to be made, ie the public service, rather than coming out with this ridiculous suggestion.

With 166 "talented" politicians in the dail we got Cowen as Taoiseach. Do you think if we cut down the pool from which we get to choose this will get any better?

InFront

sceptre wrote: »

Not too much of a factor - every time the electoral commission does its thing it bases what it does on the most recent census figures. If half a million people suddenly moved from Dublin to Mayo for whatever reason, the boundaries almost certainly wouldn't be updated and constituencies changed till they were scheduled to do it anyway.

Well there are two constitutional issues. Firstly obviously endangering the 1 TD to 20,000 - 30,000 of population issue by keeping it at too tight a fit. The most responsible thing to do in terms of that imperative is to leave representation at its current national mean of 1:25,000.
Secondly, the issue of higher distribution fluctuations keeping in mind that the according to the constitution the ratios amongst the constituencies must resemble one another in terms of representative ratio. It's just a bad time to be assessing populations, that's all I mean.
You make the point about the census, but I'm not completely sure there aren't other ways of demonstrating population changes satisfactorily in the eyes of the courts.

Belfast

Riskymove wrote: »

they don't go into much detail of course...but...

The Labour party is to propose reducing the number of full time politicians as part of a new policy document to be published shortly, its leader Eamon Gilmore has said.

Speaking at the Impact trade union conference in Portlaoise, Mr Gilmore said that between TDs and Senators and the new full-time mayors which have been proposed by the Government, the country would have between 230-240 full-time politicians.

“I think there is a need to rationalise that”, he said.

Mr Gilmore said the system of governance currently in the country dates back to the foundation of the State and he said that in the 21st century there was a need to look at this afresh “almost with a blank page”.

Mr Gilmore said the party had not yet worked out the reduction in politicians in terms of numbers. However, he said such a review would have to ask what a country with a population of 4.5 million people needed in terms of its public representation.

It is a good idea just like the one where they had that the census collect or should be used at the same time as the cencus was taken to up date the elector register.

FG and FF will not agreed just like they did not agreed to the census collector updating the elector register.

Denerick

This is such a transparantly populist move. Cutting TDs will HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER other than give Eamon Gilmore the chance to sound like a self satisfied smugster on Questions and Answers.

turgon

Also another thing. Reduced TD's = less seats in constituencies = less seats for the smaller parties like Labour.

So he must be pretty assured this wont happen.

truebluedub

turgon wrote: »

If only the Labour leader was willing to focus on the personnel cuts that need to be made, ie the public service, rather than coming out with this ridiculous suggestion.

Labour have been addressing this (http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/building_a_new_better_and_brighter_future.pdf) do try and keep up.

Here is a brief summary:
1. endorsement of the public sector pay freeze,
2.a cap on public sector pay at €200,000,
3.a programme of 1000 redundancies.
4. radical reform in the way that staff are recruited and deployed in the public service.

turgon

truebluedub wrote: »

3.a programme of 1000 redundancies.

Wow, Labour plan to cut 0.4% of the public service. Damn radicals!

truebluedub

turgon wrote: »

Wow, Labour plan to cut 0.4% of the public service. Damn radicals!

Which you attempted to mislead readers of this thread over by implying that they had no policy on public sector reform, which has to be considered in its totality, ie the four points. For example when on another thread I dismissed George Lee's policies I considered all of them and used an informal discourse analysis on them rather than just picking one and using it to mock FG.

Incidentally centre-left has never been radical.

turgon

I dont call 0.4% cut "reform."

Plus, all said "reform" is in the HSE.

truebluedub

turgon wrote: »

I dont call 0.4% cut "reform."

Plus, all said "reform" is in the HSE.

Which having been run in a fashion similar to a private company complete with a CEO and private sector ethos, including competition in core areas, is the element in the most need of reform. And what about the pay freeze, the pay cap (leading to substantial reductions on high end salaries), and changing the manner of recruitment and transfers, that is not solely in the HSE.

You continue to avoid the facts.

turgon

Im not avoiding the facts. Im just saying that this "reform" is not big enough.

And Id really like to see Labour and the Unions after this is put into practise.

Lorcan 17

Even though I am a Labour supporter I find this a cynical attempt at votegetting in this Election . There is no specifics at all . I would favour halfing the numbers of TDs and abolishing the Senate but I seriously doubt there will be ANY change .

truebluedub

turgon wrote: »

Im not avoiding the facts. Im just saying that this "reform" is not big enough.

Fine.

turgon wrote: »

And Id really like to see Labour and the Unions after this is put into practise.

Why? It's not like Labour and the unions are the same organisation. There are links but there are also much stronger links between Labour and the SDLP and they don't influence Labour.

turgon

Do not the unions send representatives to Labour meetings?

truebluedub

Yes and to other parties meetings.

MikeC101

truebluedub wrote: »

Labour have been addressing this (http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/building_a_new_better_and_brighter_future.pdf) do try and keep up.

Well, I'll attempt to "keep up"..

Here is a brief summary:
1. endorsement of the public sector pay freeze,

Right, good, but like you say it's an endorsement - didn't Fine Gael propose this?

2.a cap on public sector pay at €200,000,

Might not be a bad idea. I'd like to know more about this though - who exactly are we referring to here? Does this include government ministers, the president, judges etc?

3.a programme of 1000 redundancies.

A tiny figure in the scheme of things - but a step in the right direction if done correctly.

4. radical reform in the way that staff are recruited and deployed in the public service.

A meaningless, nothing policy imo. Anyone can say "radical reform" but what do they actually mean by this? Any numbers, anything specific? And will Labour be able, or even willing, to try and push through this in the face of adversity from the unions?

I ask these questions out of a genuine interest by the way, not intentionally trying to be hostile. I'm trying to get out of the "get fianna fail out" mindset I've found myself in recently, and focus more on who we should be getting in.

truebluedub

MikeC101 wrote: »

Well, I'll attempt to "keep up"..




Right, good, but like you say it's an endorsement - didn't Fine Gael propose this?



Might not be a bad idea. I'd like to know more about this though - who exactly are we referring to here? Does this include government ministers, the president, judges etc?



A tiny figure in the scheme of things - but a step in the right direction if done correctly.



A meaningless, nothing policy imo. Anyone can say "radical reform" but what do they actually mean by this? Any numbers, anything specific? And will Labour be able, or even willing, to try and push through this in the face of adversity from the unions?

I ask these questions out of a genuine interest by the way, not intentionally trying to be hostile. I'm trying to get out of the "get fianna fail out" mindset I've found myself in recently, and focus more on who we should be getting in.

The government proposed the pay freeze. For the other points read the document linked to in my post.

And the keep up comment was aimed at Turgon.