Fine Gael's "New Politics" proposals (Sunday Tribune article 24/01/10)

Sulmac

Fine Gael plans to unleash radical shake-up of Irish electoral system
Conor McMorrow

FINE Gael is planning a radical reform of the entire electoral system that will see some TDs elected to the Dáil through "regional elections" in four new constituencies.

The Sunday Tribune understands that key figures in the party are finalising an audacious plan to have a 'Mixed Electoral System', where 12 TDs will be elected from four regions based on the constituencies used for the European elections. They would be elected on the basis of a list system, which would be a break away from the PR-STV system which has been used in elections since the foundation of the state.

A further 134 TDs would be elected in the traditional constituency-based elections and the new slimmed-down Dáil would have 20 less TDs than the current 166 deputies. The party hopes to implement the mammoth changes for the general election after the next one.

Fine Gael is expected to publish its ground-breaking political reform plan 'New Politics' in the coming weeks. Fine Gael TDs and senators have already been briefed about the document, which claims to be "the most radical programme for political reform since the 1930s".

The document is based on four main pillars:

* A unicameral parliament (a parliament with one chamber)

* Electoral reform that will introduce a new 'mixed electoral system'

* Dáil reform based on a new 'Contract for Change' that will replace social partnership

* Local government reform

While exact details of the new list system will not be laid out in the document, it is understood that the '12 TDs from four regions' proposal is being considered by key front-bench personnel.

It is understood that 'New Politics', which was initially mooted by party leader Enda Kenny last November, has been met with widespread support from the party's front bench but there is some concern among members of the parliamentary party.

The plan outlines Kenny's controversial plan to scrap the Seanad on the basis that the population is hugely over-represented compared to other smaller countries such as New Zealand and Scotland. Ireland currently has 226 members of the Oireachtas – 166 in the Dáil, 60 in the Seanad. This equates to one member per 18,584 people.

"The principal reason for Ireland's over-representation is its bicameral (two parliamentary chamber) system. If one ignores the Seanad, and looks solely at the Dáil, Ireland's representation is more reasonable," said a Fine Gael source.

Scrapping the Seanad would save €150m over a full Dáil term and 'New Politics' will chart the fact that 12 separate reports on Seanad reform were completed between 1928 and April 2004 yet no tangible reform has actually taken place.

Phil Hogan, one of the architects of 'New Politics', told the Sunday Tribune: "In the present economic situation, we need to look at all costs associated with running the country, including the Oireachtas. One of the principal reasons why we want change is to bring about a more effective Dáil with a strong committee system.

"The second house has always lacked the popular democratic legitimacy associated with the Dáil and for that reason Fine Gael believes that it cannot carry out functions of parliamentary scrutiny efficiently and effectively."

Hogan outlined that changes to the political system will be made on the basis of "terms of reference set out for an electoral commission that will be based on geography and population concerns".

'New Politics' will also suggest the establishment of a 'constitutional convention' that will be asked to "make recommendations on the possible merits of a mixed electoral system, particularly in the light of a move to a unicameral parliament."

January 24, 2010

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/jan/24/fine-gael-plans-to-unleash-radical-shake-up-of-iri/

My view:

1) The proposal for a unicameral parliament is something I strongly support, so long as Dáil committees are given greater powers.

2) Although I feel the proposal for electoral reform does not go far enough, I welcome it as "a start". Though having just three TDs (per constituency) elected by a list system is kind of pointless, since FF and FG will probably dominate the non-Dublin districts.

3) I'll wait to see more about this "Contract for Partnership" before I make my mind up about it.

4) Local government reform is desperately needed, although I'll wait to see exactly what they have in mind.

I look forward to reading the actual document.

Eliot Rosewater

Only 12 TD's from 146 on a list system is farcical. Why would you even bother implementing that?

While any reform is welcome, this is far from the "radical shake-up" its being described as. What we really need is a new look at how the Government of this country operates.

A federal system is something I would strive towards. It makes sense that those in Cork make decisions for themselves rather having than their lives being dictated at a whim by some lobbyists up in Dublin. Ii would be like country councils, except full time and far more competencies. I would devolve things like social welfare rates down to the councils. This would necessitate giving them income tax collecting abilities too. It would result in more accountability in my opinion.

thebman

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Only 12 TD's from 146 on a list system is farcical. Why would you even bother implementing that?

You start at that as its less likely to scare people off the idea and you bring it on slowly as people don't like change.

Sleepy

Definitely a step in the right direction and another reason to vote Fine Gael in the next election. Wonder if it would have effected their polling if this had been leaked last week?

gandalf

At last one of the parties is moving in the right direction. Its not enough but its a start. They should be cutting a lot more TD's and the whole system should be list based imho. Local Government reform should consist of abolition of the majority of CC's and the formation of 4 super councils based loosely on Provences (tweaked according to population figures).

dsmythy

deadtiger wrote: »

At last one of the parties is moving in the right direction. Its not enough but its a start. They should be cutting a lot more TD's and the whole system should be list based imho. Local Government reform should consist of abolition of the majority of CC's and the formation of 4 super councils based loosely on Provences (tweaked according to population figures).

I'd go with 4 aswell myself but take Dublin out of the Leinster "super" and combine Connaught/Ulster.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jmayo

dsmythy wrote: »

I'd go with 4 aswell myself but take Dublin out of the Leinster "super" and combine Connaught/Ulster.

Let Connacht exist on it's own and simarly Ulster unless you want to pull Donegal into Connacht and Cavan/Monaghan into Leinster.
Connacht Ulster would have a far wider geographical spread than any other single area and less population density.
Imagine the state of our roads then.

Anywho this whole issue falls on it's face unless councils have more power to raise local taxes which must surely include water and property taxes.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True it is not primary concern, but at least with this and their healthcare proposals they appear to be coming up with some ideas to change the state.
If they could offload the waste of space that the Seanad is, then they would safe a few quid in the long term and it would help restore a bit of the people's faith in the political classes to actually cut their own cushy perks.

There are two senators I would like to see remain in public life, Shane Ross and David Norris.
Both have actually stuck their heads up and done some service to the state and it's people.
The rest could go and no one would notice, bar maybe donie cassidy's blind wig maker.

The problem I believe with trying to implement any of these changes is the resistance within the parties themselves and the voters who think they will lose their local fixer.

southsiderosie

Some of their proposals sound quite similar to the discussion at a political conference held at Trinity last summer.

I thought some of these proposals were interesting, but I'm left with the question: does changing the political institutions even matter if the underlying political culture is the same?

Sleepy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think politically, it's a very good time to be doing it. If you're going to ask the PS to accept redundancies / closures of quangos, it's much easier to do it after it's been done in the Oireachtas.

Selling the real "hard measure" to people which are needed when you look at the extent to which we're screwed economically is much easier when the perception exists that you're "taking your share of the pain" and are doing something about wastage in your own sphere.

It couldn't be? Ah jaysus no, the politicians couldn't understand the meaning of the word surely? But maybe? It couldn't be a display of some leadership could it?

bijapos

100 TD's max.

List system either nationwide or at the most a max of 9 constituencies, personally I would be in favour of a single nationwide list system.

Councils to be reduced to approx. 18. 4 super councils would end out with some kind of "sub divisions".

Far more smaller "community councils" or town councils, they don't have to be paid much.

Far more rights for councils to raise3 their own money, property tax and water rates being a start.

The right for a certain percentage of people in any council area or sub division to have a binding referendum on local issues or spending or removing a councillor from office.

Keep the Senate as far as I'm concerned but give everyone a vote in it, reduce it to 40, max 50 senators and pay them the equivalent of the average wage (about €38,000 a yaer ago), one paid assistant, and no other expenses.

What FG have proposed is far too little, the system needs to be changed completley.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmylawman

bijapos wrote: »

100 TD's max.

List system either nationwide or at the most a max of 9 constituencies, personally I would be in favour of a single nationwide list system.

Councils to be reduced to approx. 18. 4 super councils would end out with some kind of "sub divisions".

Far more smaller "community councils" or town councils, they don't have to be paid much.

Far more rights for councils to raise3 their own money, property tax and water rates being a start.

The right for a certain percentage of people in any council area or sub division to have a binding referendum on local issues or spending or removing a councillor from office.

Keep the Senate as far as I'm concerned but give everyone a vote in it, reduce it to 40, max 50 senators and pay them the equivalent of the average wage (about €38,000 a yaer ago), one paid assistant, and no other expenses.

What FG have proposed is far too little, the system needs to be changed completley.

Why do you want to cap their wages? Very good chance it will become dominated by the independently wealthy if that happens.

jimmylawman

thebman wrote: »

You start at that as its less likely to scare people off the idea and you bring it on slowly as people don't like change.

Absolutely, is is political reality, can't go big bang overnight.

Sleepy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I entirely agree. I just don't see the harm in stripping the unions of a stick to beat you back with before you crush them

bijapos

jimmylawman wrote: »

Why do you want to cap their wages? Very good chance it will become dominated by the independently wealthy if that happens.

Too many senators are former TD's who failed to get elected, do a term in the senate and try again for re-election. Some are just happy to sit their days out there. Paying a lower wage than they are receiving now might clean some of the less serious ones out and introduce some fresh blood who might just start thinking in a different direction. Any senators who are members of political parties toe the party line and whip religiously and have virtually nothing to contribute to debates. The less of a gravy train it is the better. If it is unattractive as a gravy train it means those who wish to be senators might be somewhat more committed.

rcecil

Sadly no reform will work until the power of big corporations to rent or buy political access is curbed. Fine Gael is historically on the side of the minority that currently get everything they want. I smell a rat!

Sulmac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be fair to Fine Gael, their site has a very useful section on "Issues" showing policy documents for most of the main political issues affecting the country, including those you mentioned.

They have quite good policy documents on economic recovery (NewERA), the banking crisis (National Recovery Bank), the health service (FairCare, with its own site), third level funding (The Third Way), local government reform (Power to the People, which I presume will be developed further in this set of proposals) and public transport (Bus Competition), among others. All these are quite explicit on their site but I think they really need to make them all more publicized (perhaps by having frequent newspaper advertising, for instance) to get their message across.

I think political reform is part of their greater "Change" (Obama-esque or what?) agenda, and is to be welcomed.

jmayo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please don't start using the argument of unions and others that shure it won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

Every 150 million adds up and the sooner the fat is trimmed then hopefully the leaner and more efficient the system gets.

bijapos wrote: »

100 TD's max.

List system either nationwide or at the most a max of 9 constituencies, personally I would be in favour of a single nationwide list system.

Councils to be reduced to approx. 18. 4 super councils would end out with some kind of "sub divisions".

Far more smaller "community councils" or town councils, they don't have to be paid much.

Far more rights for councils to raise3 their own money, property tax and water rates being a start.

The right for a certain percentage of people in any council area or sub division to have a binding referendum on local issues or spending or removing a councillor from office.

Keep the Senate as far as I'm concerned but give everyone a vote in it, reduce it to 40, max 50 senators and pay them the equivalent of the average wage (about €38,000 a yaer ago), one paid assistant, and no other expenses.

What FG have proposed is far too little, the system needs to be changed completley.

Why oh why do people think that politicans should only be paid average industrial wage or soemthing similar ?

It is like the mindset that the head of a big organisation like a bank should only be paid x.
Pay good decent salary but demand that you are getting the best.
Saying that I do not condone huge salaries, when compared to other nations.

rcecil wrote: »

Sadly no reform will work until the power of big corporations to rent or buy political access is curbed. Fine Gael is historically on the side of the minority that currently get everything they want. I smell a rat!

What big corporations ?
You do sound like a left leaning conspiracy theorist.
By the way the left have their own lobby groups who rent their own politicans.

We do have powerful lobby groups : IBEC which really is the banks and insurance companies, IFA/ICMSA for farmers, ISME for small firms, and unions primarily for public sector employees and employees of old established businesses like banks etc.

No party is immune from these vested interests groups.
Labour have always doffed their caps to the unions even though in the last 40 years some of their batty ideas would have every viable company bankrupt. Sadly their batty ideas have survived for too long in the public sector.
Indeed the UK experience should teach us what union power achieves.

And we all know about ff and their little connected groups. :rolleyes:

The greens have their own vested interest groups that would have us all riding around on donkeys and wearing sandals in the misconception that little old Ireland will save the world.
SF have their own minority in tow that not so long ago thought the answer was the bomb & the bullet and who still think marxism is the way to rule their utopian united Ireland.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We shouldn't, but given the size of the voting bloc they form, we do.

Sleepy

oscarBravo wrote: »

We shouldn't, but given the size of the voting bloc they form, we do.

Only while we allow them to be unionised...

johnnyskeleton

Sulmac wrote: »

3) I'll wait to see more about this "Contract for Partnership" before I make my mind up about it.

Reminds me of that scene in the wire when D asks Stringer is the new shipment any good. Stringer looks at him blankly and says that it's all just heroin, no matter what you call it. "New ****, same as the old"

baalthor

Here is Noel Browne advocating abolishing the Seanad in 1957 and apparently its abolition had already been proposed in 1934.

I guess each generation dreams of abolishing the Seanad and ours is no different ...

Sulmac

baalthor wrote: »

Here is Noel Browne advocating abolishing the Seanad in 1957 and apparently its abolition had already been proposed in 1934.

I guess each generation dreams of abolishing the Seanad and ours is no different ...

De Valera had the Senate of the Irish Free State abolished in 1936, via an amendment to the old Constitution (which the Oireachtas could do). He then brought it back in its current form (the Seanad) with the 1937 Constitution.

Likewise, the Progressive Democrats advocated Seanad abolition in the 1980s; before they got into power and had easy "jobs for the lads", that is.

Amhran Nua

Sulmac wrote: »

My view:

1) The proposal for a unicameral parliament is something I strongly support, so long as Dáil committees are given greater powers.

2) Although I feel the proposal for electoral reform does not go far enough, I welcome it as "a start". Though having just three TDs (per constituency) elected by a list system is kind of pointless, since FF and FG will probably dominate the non-Dublin districts.

3) I'll wait to see more about this "Contract for Partnership" before I make my mind up about it.

4) Local government reform is desperately needed, although I'll wait to see exactly what they have in mind.

I look forward to reading the actual document.

Sounds uncannily similar to what we were proposing early last year, fair play to them though. Once reforms get pushed through it doesn't matter who does it.

Sulmac

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I noticed this on Fine Gael's site today and thought it sounded similar to this line of the article:

Dáil reform based on a new 'Contract for Change' that will replace social partnership.

Here's what is says:

New form of Partnership - Varadkar

A new type of social partnership offering universal health care, State-backed pensions and targeted welfare in return for public and private sector reforms is being proposed by Fine Gael Enterprise, Trade and Employment Spokesman Leo Varadkar TD today (Thursday).

Addressing the Industrial Relations News conference in the O’Reilly Hall in UCD this afternoon, Deputy Varadkar TD called for a national effort to restore competitiveness and fiscal balance. Workers would exchange pay moderation, industrial peace and public sector reform for profit-sharing, gain-sharing and social progress from business and Government.

“The opportunity exists for a new government to create a new model of social partnership that is both fit for purpose for the 21st century, and more in keeping with the original principles of partnership.

“I envisage a new social contract, a sort of National Competitiveness and Equality Pact, in which workers deliver competitiveness and reform in the public and private sectors in return for greater equality and social progress. This would take the form of universal health care, universal State-backed pensions and greater protection from unemployment through a new flexicurity-based welfare system.

“In the private sector, I envisage workers offering wage restraint, industrial peace and co-operation with modernisation for profit-sharing and greater workplace involvement. In the public sector, I envisage public servants engaging in a total transformation of the public sector in return for a restoration of pay scales over time.

“Social Partnership served us well in the late 1980s and early in 1990s, but lost its way during the Ahern era. The social partners merely carved up the gains from the Celtic Tiger among themselves, often to the exclusion of small businesses, the self-employed, consumers and public service users. Very little real social progress was made in terms of access to health care, child care, pensions, equality or welfare reform. This model did not survive the downturn. It never could.

“To the extent that the formal structures of social partnership remain in place, they must be more democratic and have greater legitimacy. There should be a broader base of stakeholders including independent SMEs, the self-employed, consumers and taxpayer advocates and users of public services. Above all, it must respect the supremacy of the Dáil. Any round of negotiations should begin with a motion agreed by the Dáil setting out the Government’s objectives and all future national agreements must be subject to Dáil debate and approval.”

Sounds good on the surface, at least, but I'd like to see some more details...

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please ! FG are the main pushers of the € 100,000 plus salary plus car and driver and € 50,000 expense package for the ceremonial Lord Mayor's position in Cork. FG have no intention of 'saving' money from the abolishment of the Senate. This money would simply be recirculated to FG vested intersts. The ordy citizen will not see one cent of this money.

ei.sdraob

Sulmac wrote: »

To be fair to Fine Gael, their site has a very useful section on "Issues" showing policy documents for most of the main political issues affecting the country, including those you mentioned.

They have quite good policy documents on economic recovery (NewERA), the banking crisis (National Recovery Bank), the health service (FairCare, with its own site), third level funding (The Third Way), local government reform (Power to the People, which I presume will be developed further in this set of proposals) and public transport (Bus Competition), among others. All these are quite explicit on their site but I think they really need to make them all more publicized (perhaps by having frequent newspaper advertising, for instance) to get their message across.

I think political reform is part of their greater "Change" (Obama-esque or what?) agenda, and is to be welcomed.

thanks for all the links, great stuff loads to read now

thebman

anymore wrote: »

Please ! FG are the main pushers of the € 100,000 plus salary plus car and driver and € 50,000 expense package for the ceremonial Lord Mayor's position in Cork. FG have no intention of 'saving' money from the abolishment of the Senate. This money would simply be recirculated to FG vested intersts. The ordy citizen will not see one cent of this money.

evidence for this pushing?

Sulmac

Front page of today's Irish Times:

FG proposes referendum on five key political reforms

HARRY McGEE Political Correspondent

Sat, Mar 13, 2010

FINE GAEL’S document on political reform will propose a special “Constitution Day” which would see five of its major proposals to reform the political system put to referendum on the same day.

The New Politics document, to be published in advance of the party’s national conference next weekend, promises to hold an omnibus referendum within 12 months of the party assuming office that will create what it describes as a “New Republic”.

The amendments would include:

- the abolition of the Seanad;

- a new “list” system for selecting 15 TDs;

- new constitutional recognition given to four Dáil committees;

- reduction of the President’s term of office from seven years to five;

- the introduction of a public petition mechanism for the Dáil.

It also argues for two further constitutional amendments to take place before then: the reversal of the “Abbeylara” judgment that limits the power of Dáil committees to conduct investigations; and an amendment that would allow reductions in judges’ pay.

Party leader Enda Kenny, environment spokesman Phil Hogan and senior party officials have been working on the programme for over a year.

The 67-page document, a copy of which has been seen by The Irish Times , contends that it is the “most ambitious programme for political reform since the 1930s”.

The bulk of the document has been signed off by the parliamentary party following a number of presentations made by Mr Hogan. The exceptions are proposed new rules on quotas for women, which were rejected on a vote by TDs and Senators last Wednesday.

The major reforms proposed by the document are a scrapping of the Seanad and the reduction of the number of constituency TDs in the Dáil from 166 to 146.

However, there will be another 15 additional TDs, elected through a list system. The total number of TDs, under this proposal, would be 161 – a net reduction of five on the present number.

The document argues that a list will bring “people into the Dáil who can devote 100 per cent of their time to the legislative process”.

The document suggests the number of joint committees should be reduced from 19 to nine. The most powerful, interrogative Dáil committees should be given constitutional backing for the first time, it argues.

These should include the Public Accounts Committee; a new Banking and Financial Regulation Committee; a new Budget Committee and European Legislation Committee.

The party also proposes the introduction of a Public Appointments Transparency Bill which will require people appointed to key State offices to have their credentials scrutinised by TDs.

Social partnership should be scrapped under its current form. “It has become a tool to protect vested interests and insiders,” states the report.

Another new initiative is the concept of a public petition system for the Dáil. “We believe that citizens must have a direct way, between elections, to make their concerns known. Our proposal will oblige the Dáil to consider a particular issue on receipt of a public petition that has the signatures of a minimum number of citizens, eg 10,000,” it states.

The document also advocates the reduction of the presidential term from seven years to five, and a vote in that election for Irish citizens living abroad for up to five years.

© 2010 The Irish Times

They have some very interesting ideas - I look forward to reading the document!

bijapos

Sounds like a seriously watered down version of what Gormley proposed to the Oireactas committee last week.

The system needs TOTAL reform, not a piecemeal approach. While I welcome a debate on the subject, Kennys ideas will still leave us with so many TDs in the Dail who are preoccupied with pothole filling and making sure anyone who voted them in gets what they want. The country needs 100 (not 161) people in the Dail, working 5 (not 3) days a week on legislation and not on constituency business.

The amendments would include:

- the abolition of the Seanad;

Fair enough.

- a new “list” system for selecting 15 TDs;

Make that 100.


- new constitutional recognition given to four Dáil committees;

Not so sure what this is about but curious all the same.


- reduction of the President’s term of office from seven years to five;

Big deal, the post needs to be scrapped or at least the costs should be radically reformed.


- the introduction of a public petition mechanism for the Dáil.
So they would discuss something? This whole idea needs far more work, eg 100,000 signatures can force a referendum or 50,000 can force a resignation.


The document argues that a list will bring “people into the Dáil who can devote 100 per cent of their time to the legislative process”.
So 15, half of whom will be in the opposition will be devoted to "reform", the other 146 wil be...?? Like I said 100 on a list, 50 national, and 50 from 8 constituencies would help to sort out a lot of the parochial stuff.

The document suggests the number of joint committees should be reduced from 19 to nine. The most powerful, interrogative Dáil committees should be given constitutional backing for the first time, it argues.

These should include the Public Accounts Committee; a new Banking and Financial Regulation Committee; a new Budget Committee and European Legislation Committee.
Interesting, would like to hear more

If FG wanted real change they would do well to look at and offer constructive critiscism to Gormleys proposals from last week.

Annasopra

bijapos wrote: »

The country needs 100 (not 161) people in the Dail, working 5 (not 3) days a week on legislation and not on constituency business.

I'm not convinced that's ideal at all, you then have a system where TDs would be so removed from the local issues on the ground that they don't realise how legislation impacts people on the ground, they would be completely abstract debates without taking the needs of their constituents into account

jank

Lots of good ideas there. Maybe not going far enough in the list system but this is Ireland, change is slow. I think the wider public know that government is not working at the moment and only those that like the clinics and like having their td's on their call would object I.E FF types. But these proposals can put a good clear difference to those other parties that others can claim that they are all the same. FF had 70 years to implement changes. Of course it was in their interest not to. A bit of pampering to the public there but at least its a start. The people need to be taken seriously after all isnt it them that are supposed to be the rulers at the end of the day.

Sulmac

bijapos wrote: »

Sounds like a seriously watered down version of what Gormley proposed to the Oireactas committee last week.

Except they've been working on it for over a year and the original story on this was back in January.

I do agree that the 146-STV/15-list system is barely an improvement, but it gives us something to work on - particularly as many people don't necessarily understand how such a system works. As mentioned already, you start it out low because people don't like change! I do think the notion of the 50 STV (8 region)/50 national list Dáil is a great idea though.

The Sunday Tribune article also mentioned local government reform, but there is no mention of it in the Irish Times' article. Hopefully it's still in there...

I view these proposals as a "start", and at least Fine Gael are offering us more in this regard than Fianna Fáil - who (for the most part, the likes of Dempsey excepted) are more than happy to keep the current system going.

Bottle_of_Smoke

bijapos wrote: »

- the introduction of a public petition mechanism for the Dáil.
So they would discuss something? This whole idea needs far more work, eg 100,000 signatures can force a referendum or 50,000 can force a resignation.

No way. There's far more than 50,000 knee jerk reactionists in Ireland. There'd be no stability whatsoever if that went on.

100,000 signatures for a referendum? Also mad. Maybe 2mil signatures it would work but 100,000 would lead to a lot of pointless referendums.

bijapos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I'm not convinced that's ideal at all, you then have a system where TDs would be so removed from the local issues on the ground that they don't realise how legislation impacts people on the ground, they would be completely abstract debates without taking the needs of their constituents into account

But TD's ARE aware of what the people think, they tend to do whatever lobbyists and other vested interests want anyway. They are well aware from their own party workers what is going on.

No way. There's far more than 50,000 knee jerk reactionists in Ireland. There'd be no stability whatsoever if that went on.

100,000 signatures for a referendum? Also mad. Maybe 2mil signatures it would work but 100,000 would lead to a lot of pointless referendums.

Switzeland needs 100,000, they have 2-3 referendums a year. Ok, maybe thats a bit much, 100,000 was a suggestion. 250,000 would be the absolute max though, you say 2,000,000? Well fyi 1.8 million voted in Lisbon II.

Annasopra

bijapos wrote: »

But TD's ARE aware of what the people think, they tend to do whatever lobbyists and other vested interests want anyway. They are well aware from their own party workers what is going on.
.

That doesn't really address my point. Constituency casework give TDs a good understanding of what is needed by legislation and to completely remove work in the constitutency would in fact make bad legislators

Kiwi_knock

This may be a stupid question but what would be the limits on who could get a Dail seat under the list system/ Will it be open for a candidate who failed to gain a seat in the PR system? And is the list system based nationwide or regional?
Anyway good to see the Seanad might be abolished, no use for it when we have such a strong and independent judiciary.

Manach

For 100,000 people to push a referendum, I think that was in the 1922 constitution.
The Seanad is mentioned in a lot of places in the constituation. Removing it requires more than a cut & paste in that document. If instead the 11(?) senators that the Taoiseach appoints are instead chosen in another manner and it can vote on finance bills, then that would be a reform that is less of a shock to the system.
Offhand I dislike the concept of lists. At least theorical the TDs are responsible directly to the people who voted from them and the people can identify with them, not a party canditate drawn from a list.
Re: Presidental terms, if we re-joined the commenwealth we get the Queen, who might do the job for half-price and no expensive elections needed every 7 years

Annasopra

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

This may be a stupid question but what would be the limits on who could get a Dail seat under the list system/ Will it be open for a candidate who failed to gain a seat in the PR system? And is the list system based nationwide or regional?
Anyway good to see the Seanad might be abolished, no use for it when we have such a strong and independent judiciary.

We don't know the details yet of what FG is proposing, not convinced at all that our judiciary is independent, judges are politically appointed and some are very partisan, Adrian Hardiman being an example that springs to my mind

bijapos

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

This may be a stupid question but what would be the limits on who could get a Dail seat under the list system/ Will it be open for a candidate who failed to gain a seat in the PR system? And is the list system based nationwide or regional?
Anyway good to see the Seanad might be abolished, no use for it when we have such a strong and independent judiciary.

It would only make sense if the list was done on a national basis.

The way it works essentially is anyone who gets elected on the PR system is deemed elected automatically. That person would then be 'removed' from the list and the next in line on the list gets a seat. (not a good explanation)

e.g. Green Party, say their list looks like this

1. Sargent
2. Gormley
3. Ryan
4. Cuffe
5. White
6. Boyle
7. Gogarty
8. De Burca
9. O'Brolchain

Lets say they get 6% of the vote, with 50 list seats available they get 3 seats (Sargent, Gormley, Ryan), but Sargent, Ryan, Gogarty and De Burca have all been elected on the PR system.

This means that Sargents "list" seat goes to the next one on the list (Cuffe) and Ryans seat goes to the next on the list (White).

Hope thats clear.;)

Rebelheart

The Blueshirts wont abolish the Seanad - no matter what they claim they'll do. There are far too many political debts to be paid, and the Seanad settles a proportionately large number of them.

The Seanad should have been abolished years ago - it's an extraordinarily pointless institution. But it has the capacity for giving too many jobs for the boys, and also the ability to neuter political opponents, for it to be done.

One good reason not to vote for Fine Gael: they want to continue spending €100 million of taxpayers' money each and every year subsidising a "private" education system in this state. Where else in Europe does a "private" education system exist which is subsidised by the state transferring such huge resources from the public education system to prop up private institutions? It doesn't exist. Private means private everywhere else.

To hear Brian Hayes justify the current system shows Fine Gael is just as willing to sacrifice principle if it means they will keep their constituents happy, as parasitical as aforesaid constituents clearly are.

jank

Rebelheart wrote: »

The Blueshirts wont abolish the Seanad - no matter what they claim they'll do. There are far too many political debts to be paid, and the Seanad settles a proportionately large number of them.

The Seanad should have been abolished years ago - it's an extraordinarily pointless institution. But it has the capacity for giving too many jobs for the boys, and also the ability to neuter political opponents, for it to be done.

One good reason not to vote for Fine Gael: they want to continue spending €100 million of taxpayers' money each and every year subsidising a "private" education system in this state. Where else in Europe does a "private" education system exist which is subsidised by the state transferring such huge resources from the public education system to prop up private institutions? It doesn't exist. Private means private everywhere else.

To hear Brian Hayes justify the current system shows Fine Gael is just as willing to sacrifice principle if it means they will keep their constituents happy, as parasitical as aforesaid constituents clearly are.

What party do you think you get rid of this situation?

Sulmac

Article from today's Irish Times:

FG front bench split over list system

HARRY McGEE, Political Correspondent

Mon, Mar 15, 2010

THE FINE Gael front bench was deeply divided over a proposal to introduce a list system to select some TDs during discussions on its major document on political reform, according to senior figures in the party.

The original policy document presented to the shadow cabinet last month included two key proposals on Dáil electoral reform: a reduction of the number of TDs by 20 to 146; and a new list system “for the election of a limited number of people with particular expertise gained outside of politics”.

It suggested that approximately 15 TDs be elected in this manner and that the proposal be put to the Irish people as part of a super-referendum constitution day.

However, when the party front bench considered the proposal, it rejected the idea. Some TDs said privately this weekend they had been under the impression that the concept had been abandoned. But the party spokesman said this had never been the case.

It had been agreed at front-bench level that the party would begin a consultation process with its membership and the electorate before making a final decision on the list system.

Over the weekend, party leader Enda Kenny told The Irish Times the party would await the report on electoral reform due later this year from the all-party Committee on the Constitution. Mr Kenny said that if elected to Government, Fine Gael would also convene a constitutional forum within 100 days of assuming office, at which the list system and other major reforms proposed by the party, including the abolition of the Seanad, would be discussed.

Mr Kenny confirmed he would launch the document immediately after the party’s national conference in Killarney next weekend.

The proposals contained in the 67-page document are expected to form a major part of his leader’s speech on Wednesday.

“It’s a massive programme for politics,” said Mr Kenny. “I am very pleased to get the document adopted as Fine Gael policy.”

Several prominent members of the party said they opposed the list on the basis that it was elitist and divisive. A number of TDs also said they were not happy with the manner in which the parliamentary party was asked to approve the document, without catching sight of it, but on the basis of presentations made by one of its key authors, environment spokesman Phil Hogan.

The strongest public criticism of this was made by Dublin South East TD Lucinda Creighton who told Newstalk that backbenchers were expected to play the role of “performing monkeys” with respect to the document.

Ms Creighton’s objections to quotas for women candidates did force part of the document to be withdrawn.

Yesterday, the party’s energy spokesman, Simon Coveney, accepted that some TDs had reservations about the list but he believed it had merit. “Yes, there are examples of list systems being abused. But I look at it in the context of the abolition of the Seanad. There is merit in getting people into politics, who might not otherwise stand, who have something to offer on policy, or legislation or expertise,” he said.

The party spokesman said “New Politics” was “a radical document that goes to the heart of the political system. There were strong views on some proposals, which you would expect.

“It’s fantastic that we got through such a radical document and it is now Fine Gael policy,” he said. He added it was standard practice for a front bench member to make a presentation on new policy at party meetings, rather than publishing a document.

© 2010 The Irish Times

fuelinjection

Pesky blueshirts.
An anomoly of Irish politics, when will they go bankrupt and disappear ?

Sulmac

bijapos wrote: »

Lets say they get 6% of the vote, with 50 list seats available they get 3 seats (Sargent, Gormley, Ryan), but Sargent, Ryan, Gogarty and De Burca have all been elected on the PR system.

This means that Sargents "list" seat goes to the next one on the list (Cuffe) and Ryans seat goes to the next on the list (White).

Hope thats clear.;)

Well, if MMP was used (as in NZ), then if they got 6% of the vote, they'd get 6% of the total number of seats (so 6 of 100), regardless of how many TDs were elected using STV. So say the four TDs you mentioned were elected by STV, they would only get two more [Gormley and Cuffe], not three.

Everything else was spot on, though.

Annasopra

What's MMP?

Kiwi_knock

MMP is Mixed Member Proportional representation, in it you will have two votes. One for your constituency and then one nationwide or a wider geographical region. In your constituency you will vote for a specific candidate while in the nationwide vote you will vote for your party. This leaves you free to vote for the better politician in your area instead of basing your decision on party grounds.

Sulmac

From today's Irish Times:

Young Fine Gael rejects all of leadership's key reform plans

HARRY McGEE Political Correspondent

Fri, Mar 19, 2010

THE YOUTH wing of Fine Gael has come out against all the major reforms proposed by the party leadership in its radical New Politics document.

In a document to be circulated at this weekend’s national conference in Killarney, Young Fine Gael (YFG) opposes the abolition of the Seanad; the introduction of a list system; the reduction of the presidential term of office from seven years; the lowering of the voting age from 18; and the introduction of a gender quota.

Entitled Transforming Our Democracy, the document has been approved by the YFG national executive, under its president Barry Walsh.

It criticises many of the reforms driven by party leader Enda Kenny and his team as “piecemeal” and questions if such fundamental changes to the democratic system can be justified under the heading of “cost savings”.

“Some of the Fine Gael policies unveiled to date seem to be based primarily on cost-savings to the exchequer, while other seem to be a knee-jerk response to public anger,” states the document, which has been seen by The Irish Times .

“There seems to have been little consideration of how the proposed changes will impact on the workings of our democratic structures.”

According to the document, a majority of YFG members are opposed to the abolition of the Seanad and believe the savings of €30 million over a Dáil term do not constitute legitimate grounds.

Instead, YFG wants the Seanad to become a “citizens’ assembly” or a crucible of ideas, with a strict focus on long-term policy, no whip system, no remit to discuss day-to-day issues, and powers to vet appointments to important State positions.

It suggests Senators be elected on a national list system, and proposes the abolition of university seats and of the Taoiseach’s 11 nominees.

On Dáil reform, the YFG document describes the proposed list system as “tokenistic and almost meaningless”, saying it favours the retention of the current system.

On the presidency, it says reducing the seven-year term will be “meaningless to the man on the street”. It instead argues for the powers of the President to be expanded to reflect the direct mandate from voters.

The new powers would include legislation initiative, following a petition from citizens; veto over legislation; power to propose constitutional amendments; a right to meet the Cabinet; and an expanded role in foreign affairs.

On lowering the voting age, YFG states simply that it does not accept the proposition.

The document commends the party’s TDs and Senators for their decision to reject gender quotas.

“YFG is strongly opposed to the imposition of gender quotas . . . It would represent a gross distortion of the electoral process,” it states.

The party yesterday outlined details of this weekend’s conference, which is likely to be dominated by debate on the radical political reforms spearheaded by Mr Kenny, which takes place on Saturday afternoon.

Mr Kenny will make his presidential speech at 8.30pm tomorrow.

© 2010 The Irish Times

Whatever you think of the proposals, I think it's a good thing to see the youth parties (both YFG and Ógra FF with their "Marriage Equality" document) challenge the senior parties rather than just act as a mouthpiece for them.

Sulmac

The full "New Politics" document can be found here, for those interested.

Racaraghaidh

It's a very good document. It's full of sensible proposals. It mixes constituency tds with the appropriate balance of national tds. It rightly proposes abolishing the seanad, which serves no unique purpose. It's full of sensible cost saving proposals while enhancing the power of irish democracy