Internal Party Politics

FionnMatthew

The recent resignation of George Lee from FG has prompted many comments like the following:

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I have to say, for a man so exposed to the political system to resign from politics simply because he didn't get an immediate, grand promotion, is naive in the extreme.

Lee has been quite public over his disappointment about life as a back bencher, he didn't hid the fact that he felt he should have been entitled to more speaking time on NAMA than presumably his colleagues on the other back benches were afforded - perhaps his colleagues on the front benches even. But he's only been in there six months, did he expect to be Finance Minister by now?

It will be interesting to see where he goes from here... back to RTE? Life as a reporter would be hard to defend after a stint in Leinster House.

kippy wrote: »

Im still wondering what exactly this will achieve for Lee.

Perhaps he has gone into the world of politics a bit green (difficult to see how from where he stood before) and he'd now realised that theres plenty in line before him for the big jobs. He cant see a general election any time soon and doesnt believe he will have any chance of making an impact - so he gets out of the party. But to give up his seat also.....that smacks of arrogance and ignorance.
He may be able to effect change and keep his seat as an indo more easily than if her were with FG. People voted for him and gave him a mandate, now he's let them down.
I think he doesnt have a thick enough skin for politics and perhaps this shows us why more young well qualified professionals, who dont gome from a politicatal background dont go into politics.

There seems to be a lot of agreement on this point in the media and here on Boards. It makes me wonder: what is the implicit ideal model for internal party politics here?

The best reasons I can see for why it might take a long time to begin to give a solicited, talented new TD and party member substantive input into policy in the area of his expertise are:

• That a party's internal organization is gerontocratic (linked to job seniority),
• or cronyistic.

Where (2) is linked to (1) because sticking around longer means you can play the internal politics game for longer, and therefore position yourself for promotion.

I expect that in Irish politics it won't come as a surprise that a third method of organization can often circumvent the above two.

• Nepotism.

But most would see that as wrong. Whereas, it appears from the comments I've been reading that the former two methods of internal organization, seeing as they are the commonplaces of advancement in the normal workplace, are unobjectionable.

I don't dispute that these are realities. It is very apparent to me that someone widely regarded as an intelligent and valuable economist can't, in the space of a few months, waltz into a position in a major political party where he might be able to make a difference.

But why shouldn't he be able to? Why should positions with any clout in terms of effective policy be awarded to those who wait the longest, and/or play the amicus game best? Is that the ideal method of internal structuring for an organization that is supposed to be built to govern? What sort of leadership does that select?

If politicians, ideally, should be able to govern, and the more deceptive qualities that are favoured by office politics are anathema to this, doesn't this run the risk of letting the scum float to the top?

Why shouldn't the ideal for internal party organization be meritocratic, rather than gerontocratic careerism?

Remember, I don't for a moment dispute that this is how it is? But should it be this way? Because a goodly portion of the negative pres Lee is getting seems predicated on the notion that, not only could he not have realistically expected to have an immediate effect on FG, but that he should not be so arrogant as to expect that, ideally, he could have an immediate effect.

Well, I ask, what possible hope do we have for the effectiveness of parties as policy-generating and policy-implementing structures if this is the model we not only recognize as the norm, but endorse as the ideal? Is it really that Irish people think this is the way parties should be, or is it a case of Stockholm syndrome?

Red_Marauder

Vivisection wrote: »

The best reasons I can see for why it might take a long time to begin to give a solicited, talented new TD and party member substantive input into policy in the area of his expertise are:

• That a party's internal organization is gerontocratic (linked to job seniority),
• or cronyistic.

Rubbish.

Eight months is not a "long time". By the way it was about four months of Dáil time.
Secondly your two "best reasons" are not that. You fail to explore why a seniority structure could be linked to experience - of which George Lee had none as far as political administration goes.

If politicians, ideally, should be able to govern, and the more deceptive qualities that are favoured by office politics are anathema to this, doesn't this run the risk of letting the scum float to the top?

You have made a huge leap of judgement here somewhere along the way, or else you seem to think you have established a point that has not been established.

Leo Varadkar amd Luncinda Creighton are young new faces in Fine Gael, younger than Lee, only in the Dáil over two years, and both (30 year old Varadkar in particular) hold key posts within the party.

They disprove your whole point entirely. I'm sorry if you think this is rude, but most of it is waffle.

Sleepy

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Leo Varadkar amd Luncinda Creighton are young new faces in Fine Gael, younger than Lee, only in the Dáil over two years, and both (30 year old Varadkar in particular) hold key posts within the party.

Do you know how long have they been active party members? I've always assumed that one must spend years 'serving your time' knocking on doors for others / playing at town councillor etc. before you'd even be considered to be put on a ticket for a Dáil seat...

Red_Marauder

Sleepy wrote: »

Do you know how long have they been active party members? I've always assumed that one must spend years 'serving your time' knocking on doors for others / playing at town councillor etc. before you'd even be considered to be put on a ticket for a Dáil seat...

Varadkar has probably been active in the party aboout ten years, he was a councillor for four or five years before his election, before that he was in Trinity YFG.

I don't know about Lucinda Creighton but she was prominant in Young Fine Gael at national level and is a former political advisor to FG so you can take it from that she's been active in the party since her University days.

These people are new faces within the parliamentary structure whose merit was quickly realised, so the whole thing about croneyism and "hanging around" for long enough just doesn't hold water.

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Varadkar has probably been active in the party aboout ten years, he was a councillor for four or five years before his election, before that he was in Trinity YFG.

I don't know about Lucinda Creighton but she was prominant in Young Fine Gael at national level and is a former political advisor to FG so you can take it from that she's been active in the party since her University days.

These people are new faces within the parliamentary structure whose merit was quickly realised, so the whole thing about croneyism and "hanging around" for long enough just doesn't hold water.

I count well over seventy FG representatives in the "Families in the Oireachtas" page. Also both of the people you highlight appear to have devoted most of their lives to FG, so could hardly be used as examples of not having hung around long enough.

FionnMatthew

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Rubbish.

Eight months is not a "long time". By the way it was about four months of Dáil time.
Secondly your two "best reasons" are not that. You fail to explore why a seniority structure could be linked to experience - of which George Lee had none as far as political administration goes.

I don't see why experience as a Dáil hand might have debarred his function in an advisory or policy-shaping role, provided whatever pertinent experience is accrued in the process of careerist politicking was accounted for by others. Said another way, I don't see why experience-based selection is mutually exclusive with merit-based selection.

Further, I didn't suggest eight months is a long time. You suggested, in the comment I quoted, that eight months is too little. The implication is that there should be a long wait before someone is in a position to make policy. I don't know how long a long time is for you. I expect it has to do with whether one 'waited in line,' because there were a lot of comments of that sort flying around too.

You have made a huge leap of judgement here somewhere along the way, or else you seem to think you have established a point that has not been established.

I haven't made a huge leap of judgment, but I may have telescoped my argument for the sake of brevity, in the particular quote to which you were responding here.

Leo Varadkar amd Luncinda Creighton are young new faces in Fine Gael, younger than Lee, only in the Dáil over two years, and both (30 year old Varadkar in particular) hold key posts within the party.

Both, also, sadly, examples of careerist politicians. Part of the substance of my question is whether careerism is out of place in politics - whether technocratic or meritocratic organisation might not be better suited to the demands of governance, and whether that wouldn't alleviate the need for the specific sort of 'experience' our dubious 'leaders' accrue, in favour of more specialized experience.

I'm sorry if you think this is rude, but most of it is waffle.

It's not the rudeness I object to per se, it's that the rude bits are the only real waffle in this thread, since you could have made your point without them, and since I made my points directly enough, and am prepared to explain myself on request. If I'm really wrong, it ought to be evident once you point it out. I'd much rather you just made your point, and spared my eyes the saccades necessary to read your pointless insults.

Red_Marauder

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I count well over seventy FG representatives in the "Families in the Oireachtas" page.

Is this a joke? You think that 90 years of the state, listing every single senator and TD with any links to any parliamentarian (including a few whose grandparents were MPs for the IPP!) is relevant? Get real, it's 2010 for goodness sake.

Also both of the people you highlight appear to have devoted most of their lives to FG, so could hardly be used as examples of not having hung around long enough.

Most of their lives? Creighton and Varadkar were in YFG while in University, they served a term as councillors, and then they got promoted to the front bench soon after entering Dáil éireann. It's not their whole lives, it's gaining experience of politics.

Imagine running an organisation where you appointed twenty five year olds with no experience into roles in senior management.
The fact is that Fine Gael has got it quite right on injecting new blood and has a bigger youth following than any other party. This thread needs a serious reality check.

Sleepy

Who said anything about putting 25 year olds with no experience into roles in senior management?

In the commercial world it's not unheard of at all to take someone with relevant experience in another sector and parachute them into the ranks of senior management. Can't see why this couldn't be done in a political party tbh.

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Is this a joke? You think that 90 years of the state, listing every single senator and TD with any links to any parliamentarian (including a few whose grandparents were MPs for the IPP!) is relevant? Get real, it's 2010 for goodness sake.

The list is incomplete. Its also worth noting that Enda Kenny himself is the son of a TD; what with it being 2010 perhaps we should be dispensing with these antiquated nepotistic relationships within political parties.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Most of their lives? Creighton and Varadkar were in YFG while in University, they served a term as councillors, and then they got promoted to the front bench soon after entering Dáil éireann. It's not their whole lives, it's gaining experience of politics.

I said most of their lives, not all of their lives. Perhaps that should have been qualified with "adult, working", which amounts to much the same thing.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Imagine running an organisation where you appointed twenty five year olds with no experience into roles in senior management.
The fact is that Fine Gael has got it quite right on injecting new blood and has a bigger youth following than any other party.

That some might characterise that as a cynical attempt to capture the youth vote without actually representing any real change is perhaps understandable.

Red_Marauder

Vivisection wrote: »

I don't see why experience as a Dáil hand might have debarred his function in an advisory or policy-shaping role,

Maybe Lee should have declined the offer to run and offered his services as a non-elected advisor then.

Said another way, I don't see why experience-based selection is mutually exclusive with merit-based selection.

Maybe don't try to confuse the two. You need to have both and both rely on one another somewhat. If you want to work as a public administrator. It's no good knowing the theory behind economic administration without understanding how to implement policy.

I haven't made a huge leap of judgment, but I may have telescoped my argument for the sake of brevity

I don't think your first post could be accused of brevity, whatever else one might say of it.

Both, also, sadly, examples of careerist politicians. Part of the substance of my question is whether careerism is out of place in politics - whether technocratic or meritocratic organisation might not be better suited to the demands of governance

Why don't you back that up? Why don't you think it is their skills, education and natural capabilities that they were elected on foot of, and upon which that they have been appointed as spokespeople? You need to back that up before you see it as established.

Furthermore, you totally ignore the fact that their roles in the party undermine your central notion that it takes a "long time to give a... talented new TD and party member substantive input into policy". It's clearly rubbish. Your post doesn't make sense. Waffle.

Red_Marauder

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The list is incomplete. Its also worth noting that Enda Kenny himself is the son of a TD; what with it being 2010 perhaps we should be dispensing with these antiquated nepotistic relationships within political parties.

Ban prejudice!
No relatives of politicians allowed!

Red_Marauder

Sleepy wrote: »

Who said anything about putting 25 year olds with no experience into roles in senior management?

In the commercial world it's not unheard of at all to take someone with relevant experience in another sector and parachute them into the ranks of senior management. Can't see why this couldn't be done in a political party tbh.

Absolutely. But Creighton and Varadkar are a case in point.

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Ban prejudice!
No relatives of politicians allowed!

Or ban them from running in the same constituency. No doubt they would have little difficulty attaining electoral success no matter where they are, correct?

Is Mr Kenny still holding down that permanent teaching job while he heads up the opposition by the way?

Red_Marauder

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Or ban them from running in the same constituency.

Ban somebody running in a constituency they contribute to, live, work and pay taxes in? Because their father might have been a councillor? Their Uncle? Next door neighbour? That's garbage.

Do you support Amhran Nua btw? It's quite easy for someone with no political representation to peddle these views, of course, but in real life politics there will always be relatives or friends of ex candidates being elected.

Election is, after all, by the people - not party conferences.

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Ban somebody running in a constituency they contribute to, live, work and pay taxes in? Because their father might have been a TD? Their Uncle? Next door neighbour? That's garbage.

If they are such capable politicians, they should have no difficulty getting elected in another constituency. Anti nepotism rules exist in many public service sectors throughout the world, and for good reason. After all, we wouldn't want politicians elected who had no experience of anything outside of peddling favours, on the strength of their family names and a prebuilt network of vested interests, now would we?

Can you respond to my other question please, is Mr Kenny still holding down a permanent teaching position at this time?

Sleepy

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Absolutely. But Creighton and Varadkar are a case in point.

Of what? People working their way up through a party?

I'm not on a witch hunt here. FG will most likely be getting my vote in the next election unless a better alternative emerges (even though I find the notion of Labour getting near government terrifying) I just can't stand by and watch FF pillage the coffers any longer.

Red_Marauder

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If they are such capable politicians, they should have no difficulty getting elected in another constituency.

Why should a councillor who lives in West Cork run in East Cork? You think it's in the best interests of a constituency to have outiders deciding internal politics for that region? You haven't thought this through, it doesn't make sense, but feel free to keep digging down.

Can you respond to my other question please, is Mr Kenny still holding down a permanent teaching position at this time?

I had to google it to find out, because I don't give a damn. Next time use google yourself

Link

Oh - and the answer is No.

Red_Marauder

Sleepy wrote: »

Of what? People working their way up through a party?

No, all of their previosu work with FG was part time, including the three years they spent as councillors. I don't think that's excessive. The chances are that Creighton in particular would have gotten elected even without that given her popularity in Dublin South East.

You can't please everyone. If you parachute in a candidate it's accused of being a cheap vote buyer, if you appoint a candidate whose spent three years as a councillor (a relatively tiny amount of time) people call it croneyism.

Sometimes the parties with no representatives at all have it too easy.

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Why should a councillor who lives in West Cork run in East Cork? You think it's in the best interests of a constituency to have outiders deciding internal politics for that region? You haven't thought this through, it doesn't make sense, but feel free to keep digging down.

Local elections, fine, national elections shouldn't have anything to do with internal politics for a region. What is internal politics anyway?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I had to google it to find out, because I don't give a damn.

So hold on a minute, you didn't know whether or not the leader of the party you support with every single post was holding a permanent teaching position away from a young teacher in a time of soaring unemployment, and furthermore you didn't care?

Interesting order of priorities there.

Maybe its time to ask yourself which is more important to you, party or country.

Red_Marauder

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Local elections, fine

Ah look, make up your mind another time, it's probably all just Amhran Nua crazy rhetoric anyway

So hold on a minute, you didn't know whether or not the leader of the party you support with every single post was holding a permanent teaching position away from a young teacher in a time of soaring unemployment, and furthermore you didn't care?

Yes and yes. I didn't know and I don't care. As it happens, he doesn't have a teaching job.

I just don't know why you couldnt have found that out yourself, it takes about 2 mins on google.

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Ah look, make up your mind another time, it's probably all just Amhran Nua crazy rhetoric anyway

Whats crazy is the parish pump "ah he came from a good family" political nonsense that has saddled the country with the crop we have in charge at the moment, and the party structures that enabled this to happen.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Yes and yes. I didn't know and I don't care.

Well, thats a pity.

Red_Marauder

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Whats crazy is the parish pump "ah he came from a good family" political nonsense that has saddled the country with the crop we have in charge at the moment, and the party structures that enabled this to happen.

Welcome to democracy, all the people won't all make the best decision, but they'll all make the democratic one.

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Welcome to democracy, all the people won't all make the best decision, but they'll all make the democratic one.

The general idea behind democracy is that it doesn't turn into an aristocracy wherein blind loyalty to leaders you don't know much about is the norm.

Red_Marauder

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The general idea behind democracy is that it doesn't turn into an aristocracy wherein blind loyalty to leaders you don't know much about is the norm.

Sure, Ireland is an aristocracy. Very Clever Observation.

The idea behind a democracy is popular choice. If people want to vote for Willy O Dea or Enda Kenny or the great grandson of a TD who was the great great grandson of another MP, then it really is their own democratic business.

The alternative is a sort of chaperoned Seanad-esque electoral system where 'people who know better' install leaders as opposed to making them directly accountible to the people via popular election.

Tommy Bateman

Ah sure them FGers can hold nothing together, never mind the country through a crisis which is why the people love Lenny, because they know better. Not that they would have gotten my vote anyway, but this is really really showing me that they wouldn't get my vote even if they paid me. FG are a feckin joke.

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The idea behind a democracy is popular choice.

So why do we need proportional representation, which among other things institutes a minimum voting threshold which restricts full democratic representation?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If people want to vote for Willy O Dea or Enda Kenny or the great grandson of a TD who was the great great grandson of another MP, then it really is their own democratic business.

And if Willy O'Dea or Enda Kenny are such great politicians, they won't need any unfair advantages bestowed on them by dint of having the same family name as someone who achieved things on their own merits.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The alternative is a sort of chaperoned Seanad-esque electoral system where 'people who know better' install leaders as opposed to making them directly accountible to the people via popular election.

This is a false dichotomy, although what you are describing is similar to a party list system which is used by the overwhelming majority of countries that use proportional representation, the intention of which is to make parties which decide policies accountable, rather than individual representatives who may be forced to choose between the national good versus the good of their home constituency.

There are many alternatives, only two of which have been mentioned in this thread.

I have to say, at the end of the day I do have a great respect for Enda Kenny and his achievements as a person, and to a lesser extent his achievements within the FG party, but too much has gone wrong for the glaring problems within the Irish political system to be glossed over this time.

Red_Marauder

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So why do we need proportional representation, which among other things institutes a minimum voting threshold which restricts full democratic representation?

I didn't say we need PR, I don't give a damn about PR. It can be scrapped if people want it scrapped. The big benefit to the state and the national interest is that it would decimate some of the small, loony parties.

What I said is that I'm oposed to you crazy notion about non resident TDs running constituencies, and making decisions for constituents that they don't have to go back and live beside.

We've had absentee rulers in this country before; it doesn't work.

Amhran Nua wrote:

And if Willy O'Dea or Enda Kenny are such great politicians, they won't need any unfair advantages bestowed on them by dint of having the same family name as someone who achieved things on their own merits.

But nobody is saying they do. The son or the daughter or the great great grandnephew of a TD is just as entitled to run for office as the son or the daughter or the great great grandnephew of a road sweeper. That is equality of opportunity.

My Grandfather had the same profession as I do. Did he give me my place at University? No. I got there myself, but he probably inspired me. It's the same for parents who work in industry, teaching, farming, entertainment, whatever. You cannot escape the naked fact that TDs cannot install themselves, only the demiocratic vote can install a TD. The people are free to say yes or no to a party's candidate.

Look, as for your other ideas, you can talk about the list system or the STV until the cows come home, fine. It's not a practical reality, it's unlikely to become a reality within this generation or the next. The reality is democracy as it stands by means of PR/ STV.

Tricity Bendix

Vivisection wrote: »

Why shouldn't the ideal for internal party organization be meritocratic, rather than gerontocratic careerism?

Sorry to pick out just this small bit from your post, but I would like to put forward the proposition that 'hanging in there' and 'paying your dues' are a means that people use to signal to higher ups in a party that they do merit consideration. If someone manages to hold an elected position for some amount of time it indicates that their beliefs and opinions and personality are viewed favourably by the electorate.

It would be difficult to run a party based on a meritocratic basis, as what merits a good politician is subjective. And a successful politician might be preferred to a good one. So firstly the leadership would have to decide on what basis they want to promote politicians, and then they would have to think about how they could measure such qualities as they deem desirable.

When looking at what makes a good politician, you have to see it from the party leaderships' point of view. First and foremost is electability. Someone like George Lee was obviously very electable, but how many people like him could come in and have that sort of impact? For everyone else the best way to signal that you have electability is to win elections. Which by neccessity starts out small. Rising up a constituency or youth organisation, then on to a town/county/city council and then on to the Dáil. The PDs were famous for bringing in outsiders, but in the end the big names failed to be electable and the party was left with only its most experienced vote-getter and a cute hoor from Galway.

Things other than electability are important of course, otherwise the Taoiseach would be the individual to garner most votes in an election. Media savy, a grasp for details, and command of a brief are all good traits, if harder to measure.

wicklowwonder

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The fact is that Fine Gael has got it quite right on injecting new blood and has a bigger youth following than any other party. This thread needs a serious reality check.

Sorry to go slighty off point just wondering do you ave figures to prove Fine Gael has the biggest youth following and if you have could you please post a link be interested in reading them.

Thanks

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I didn't say we need PR, I don't give a damn about PR.

Theres quite a lot you don't give a damn about it seems.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

It can be scrapped if people want it scrapped. The big benefit to the state and the national interest is that it would decimate some of the small, loony parties.

What I said is that I'm oposed to you crazy notion about non resident TDs running constituencies, and making decisions for constituents that they don't have to go back and live beside.

TDs make few enough decisions at the national level about their constituencies, except on the odd occasion; thats why parties have a whip, to make sure that everyone toes the line. Local decisions should be made at the local level.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

My Grandfather had the same profession as I do. Did he give me my place at University? No. I got there myself, but he probably inspired me. It's the same for parents who work in industry, teaching, farming, entertainment, whatever. You cannot escape the naked fact that TDs cannot install themselves, only the demiocratic vote can install a TD. The people are free to say yes or no to a party's candidate.

You need to sit down at an impartial exam and prove yourself on your own merits in any other career than politics, and this is the vital difference. You don't get +10 points because you're a Cowen, or +15 points because your grandfather was shot in the shin by the black and tans, and you don't get +20 points due to having an established network of financial support and contacts from birth, which lends itself to you passing the exam by sitting on your arse doing nothing.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Look, as for your other ideas, you can talk about the list system or the STV until the cows come home, fine. It's not a practical reality, it's unlikely to become a reality within this generation or the next. The reality is democracy as it stands by means of PR/ STV.

And that attitude is exactly why people are disillusioned with politics in Ireland. Sure it hasn't changed yet, why would it ever change. I'm hoping thats not the FG party line.

I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on these matters so I'll leave it at that, good vigorous discussion and I certainly enjoyed it - I hope theres food for thought there on both sides.