The Ceann Comhairle - "Above Politics"?

starbelgrade

I've heard that expression bandied about in the news recently and wondered how exactly is an elected TD, who is often elected to the position by the majority vote of the majority party, supposed to maintain impartiality & be "above politics"? There is an obvious incumbent bias.

Surely it would make more sense, if, at the very least the elected CC were to (at least temporarily) resign from their party & therir position as a TD.

Note - this is NOT a discussion about John O'Donoghue.

ArmaniJeanss

In fairness to the current CC, the leaders of all the parties were quick to emphasise that they recognized he'd been a fair and impartial CC.

I don't think theres ever been a serious question mark of bias raised against any CCs (or speakers of the House of Commons).

After a shaky start (the famous 'I would remind the gentleman' encounter with Enda Kenny) JOD seems to have quite good at the CC job.

As for resigning as a TD - well you'd obviously then either have a constituency underrepresented, or else you'd need a by-election and an extra TD. And because governments never win by-elections wouldn't the governing party be immediately giving a 2 seat swing to the opposition etc.
And would he/she still get auto-relected in the next GE? If not the job would always have to be given to someone approaching retirement etc.
Its trickier than you think.

Biggins

The current situation was discussed yesterday (wed') briefly in the Dail.
At present the party in power gets to say who will be CC.
Cowen (to his credit and its not often I say that) offered to talk with the opposition about JOD's replacement.
There is talk of changing the selection rules in the future, in so that the whole house will eventually be able to have a more democratic say on who gets the job.

The sooner that comes in, the better.
Its one of many necessary changes needed I feel.

starbelgrade

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its trickier than you think.

So it appears - however the question of impartiality still remains, which is why I'm glad to see the selection process (as Biggins points out) being discussed.

lostexpectation

cc's are biased towards the gov no doubt

Tableman

Why does a TD have to be CC anyway? Surely, there could be a better way to select a cc

turgon

What I find interesting is that the Leas-CC doenst get re-elected even though have the time I watch the Dail hes at the helm.

Perhaps a system where the opposition get on CC, and the government get another CC, and they both get re-elected, might help?

Sizzler

Maybe Im understating the position somewhat but all he has to do is open and close proceedings and effectively interject every now and again by banging his gavel. The Dáil isnt exactly an unruly mob with Kenny clambering across the benches to get to Cowen Handy number in reality for any TD who is anyway mildly au fait with dail proceedings.

Euro_Kraut

The Chairman must always appear to be neutral. Of course that can never be. But the pretense is important. I don't think a CC can be expected to campaign for a seat and still remain impartial.

As mentioned the problem with JOD does not arise from the role if the CC in the Dail. He engaged in the same behavour as Govt minister.

Daftendirekt

Something I don't understand:

What's the advantage to a party to have one of their own as CC? Isn't it just one less vote for them?

turgon

Its actually not as easy as it appear on the face of it.

Obviously the CC must be familiar with all the standing orders that govern Dail business. But he also must be familiar with how CC's before him acted in certain scenarios. Consider, for example, when FG tried to move the writ for the two Dail by-elections. O'Donoghue made a speech about the process in which he referenced what a CC had done back in the 60's. So procedure is like common law in that it is based on what has happened (I think).

MikeC101

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Something I don't understand:

What's the advantage to a party to have one of their own as CC? Isn't it just one less vote for them?

Long term, it's a guaranteed seat for the party after the next general election, as CC doesn't have to stand. Depending on the constituency and the TD in question, that could be very useful - think 3 seats that traditionally went FF, FG and the remaining one that varied. In the next election, there are only two seats, a good chance of it being FF and FG, then FF have two seats there.

Maybe, and I'm not sure on this, given that in the event of a tie the CC votes with the government, though I think this is by convention only. So he could vote against if he wished. The worry that a "rogue" CC might vote against the Govt in a tie breaker might outweigh the benefits of essentially gaining two votes (current CC would be FF again, and the opposition would lose a vote). Not a very solid reason.

hallelujajordan

Tableman wrote: »

Why does a TD have to be CC anyway? Surely, there could be a better way to select a cc

Agreed, why can they not appoint someone independent, a senior counsel perhaps, rather than an elected representative.

ArmaniJeanss

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Agreed, why can they not appoint someone independent, a senior counsel perhaps, rather than an elected representative.

I'm fairly sure that its in the constitution that he must be elected by the members of the Dail from amongst their number, and will be elected unopposed at the next GE.

I suppose we could have a referendum on it.

lostexpectation

its elected member cos he has a vote, didn't brown appoint a tory, a new labour type, but a tory.

Tableman

I'm fairly sure that its in the constitution that he must be elected by the members of the Dail from amongst their number, and will be elected unopposed at the next GE.

I suppose we could have a referendum on it.

Yes another referendum!

I actually think its very unfair on the person who given their no. 1 vote to the TD who becomes CC. Its basically the equivalent of them not getting elected as they dont have a vote.

Rebelheart

I'm surprised, with the heading on this thread, none of you referenced the letter writer in today's Irish Times:

Madam, – If the Ceann Comhairle’s office is considered to be above politics, can someone please point out what could possibly be considered “below” politics? – Yours, etc,
DONAL O’CARROLL,
Cloonagulleen,
Kildimo, Co Limerick.


:-)


http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224256167525

Pygmalion

Tableman wrote: »

Yes another referendum!

I actually think its very unfair on the person who given their no. 1 vote to the TD who becomes CC. Its basically the equivalent of them not getting elected as they dont have a vote.

Sure don't they get a vote in the event of a tie?

So generally their vote is only counted when it's needed, in 99.9%* of other cases their votewouldn't have changed the outcome anyway, as even with their vote the result would be the same.

*If the bill passes/fails by one vote and the CC intend to vote the other way then it could be considered that he loses the power to make a draw in these issues... But in such a case the tie would have to be resolved some other way so his vote would just pass it along to another process.

starbelgrade

Rebelheart wrote: »

I'm surprised, with the heading on this thread, none of you referenced the letter writer in today's Irish Times:

Madam, – If the Ceann Comhairle’s office is considered to be above politics, can someone please point out what could possibly be considered “below” politics? – Yours, etc,
DONAL O’CARROLL,
Cloonagulleen,
Kildimo, Co Limerick.


:-)


http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224256167525

I don't read the Times, so I wouldn't have noticed it. Good letter though... "Below" politics?!