TDs gagged by party whips

Zynks

Did anyone see Brian Hayes' burst earlier this week about how TDs, in spite of being entitled to have a view and express it as public representatives, have been stopped from doing so by party whips (on both sides, government and opposition) for the last 10 years?

I am surprised this isn't getting much more attention. In my view that is a very serious issue that reduces the capability of TDs to represent us effectively in the Dail.

I always said that I vote for people who may happen to be in parties, unlike most voters who seem to take a football match approach of being pro or against parties.

Do most people really think that the position of the party whip is more important than the individual views of your elected TD?

As my signature suggests, I don't but I wanted to know if this is a minority view.

hotmail.com

Vincent Browne often gives about the party whip system. Essentially the government of the day, the cabinet, make all the decisions and push them through the Dail with the whip system. About 150 of the Dail TDs are effectively powerless and largely irrelevant.

Zynks

hotmail.com wrote: »

Vincent Browne often gives about the party whip system. Essentially the government of the day, the cabinet, make all the decisions and push them through the Dail with the whip system. About 150 of the Dail TDs are effectively powerless and largely irrelevant.

That's exactly my point. If they are just numbers, what is the point of having two or more candidates in a constituency since all they will be mere numbers under the party whip at the end?

Ultimately under this system we are not really electing anyone, we are influencing how strong the party whip is...

Is that what we want?

hotmail.com

Zynks wrote: »

That's exactly my point. If they are just numbers, what is the point of having two or more candidates in a constituency since all they will be mere numbers under the party whip at the end?

Ultimately under this system we are not really electing anyone, we are influencing how strong the party whip is...

Is that what we want?

There's a strong argument to reduce the number of TDs for exactly this reason. Furthermore, the question of the relevance of the seanad has to be addressed as well.

The TDs in this country engage in so called parish pump politics from the time they're elected so as to get re-elected at the next election. So they attend endless functions, funerals, meetings and even weddings. This has nothing to do with being a TD in my view - the duty of a TD is to be a legislator.

NewHillel

hotmail.com wrote: »

There's a strong argument to reduce the number of TDs for exactly this reason. Furthermore, the question of the relevance of the seanad has to be addressed as well.

If Mr Gilmore were to give commitments in this area he'd get my No 1.

blackdog2

Just to clarify, there is no BDSM here?

Sand

They need to introduce secret ballots in the Dail to break the whip system. If no one knows exactly how a TD voted, then they cant target them. That means they cant be intimidated by either the cabinet or the Bonker Raving Loony wing of their party. Open voting was the greatest gift to rich people and lobbyists. They know exactly who to attack with their wealth and who to reward.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

thebman

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You could make this information available a set period after the voting has taken place IMO after media coverage has blown over and the public are mad about other things.

hotmail.com

Some say moving to a winner past the post system will improve the political system - but even within democracies that use the winner past the post format, the whip tradition is still used (UK for example).

On the other hand how would the government of the day get anything through the Dail if TDs were allowed to have an open vote on every piece of legislation.

Amhran Nua

I think the general theory is that the parliamentary party within the overall party comes up with and agrees to policies themselves, behind closed doors, and the whip is there to enforce that policy to ensure that minority dissenters don't derail party policies. This is done in association with senior civil servants who provide data to inform these policies.

How it probably works in Ireland however is that the majority of TDs are too busy filling in potholes to ensure their re-election to get involved in policy formation, and so end up nodding to whatever they are told to nod to.

Get rid of the single transferable vote and move to a party list system and that all changes. You'd still have the whips but at least you'd have some sort of confidence that TDs are being heard.

Sand

@eVeNtInE

But then how would you hold individual TDs accountable for their decisions?

It's pretty important to know the things your local representative votes for when you're trying to decide who to vote for come election time.

Sure, the ordinary voter wont *know* exactly how each TD voted, but neither will the well funded, very committed and corrupting political and corporate lobbies. And ordinary voters will do better in a situation where both they and lobbyists are not certain exactly how votes were cast.

Under the current Irish system it doesnt matter what your TD thinks - he has to vote for party policy, decided by the leadership. Your opinion means nothing. The only way of breaking that is to ensure that the leadership cant know who voted for or against.

mdebets

hotmail.com wrote: »

The TDs in this country engage in so called parish pump politics from the time they're elected so as to get re-elected at the next election. So they attend endless functions, funerals, meetings and even weddings. This has nothing to do with being a TD in my view - the duty of a TD is to be a legislator.

And that's exactly why Ireland needs a whip system.
Imagine for a moment every TD could vote the way he wants. What would happen would be:
The cabinet comes up with a change to a law and wants its TDs to vote for it.
TD A: Road x in my constituency is full of potholes and needs to be be fixed. Unless you do this for me, I won't vote for this law.
TD B: The HSE wants to close the local hospital in my constituency, because it has only 5 patients per year. Unless you prevent this, I won't vote for this law.
TD C: The farmers in my constituency moan about the reduction in their subsidies. Unless you increase them, I won't vote for this law.
And so it would go on for each TD for every law. This system would be unworkable.

Zynks

mdebets wrote: »

And that's exactly why Ireland needs a whip system.
Imagine for a moment every TD could vote the way he wants. What would happen would be:
The cabinet comes up with a change to a law and wants its TDs to vote for it.
TD A: Road x in my constituency is full of potholes and needs to be be fixed. Unless you do this for me, I won't vote for this law.
TD B: The HSE wants to close the local hospital in my constituency, because it has only 5 patients per year. Unless you prevent this, I won't vote for this law.
TD C: The farmers in my constituency moan about the reduction in their subsidies. Unless you increase them, I won't vote for this law.
And so it would go on for each TD for every law. This system would be unworkable.

This argument would support a stronger separation between the legislative and the executive powers, but I fail to see how it supports party whips. Two wrongs don't make a right in my view.

Some good info on that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

mdebets

Zynks wrote: »

This argument would support a stronger separation between the legislative and the executive powers, but I fail to see how it supports party whips. Two wrongs don't make a right in my view.

Separation of power wouldn't help in this situation. The only thing that would help would be if a TD could not be re-elected. Otherwise he would still be dependent on being seen by his voters to have something done for them.
If votes would be free, each vote would have a price of positive legislation for each TD's constituency (imagine a Tony Gregory deal for each TD for each vote).
You need something that is at least one level removed from the need to please a certain constituency, which at the moment is the party whip.

See the following example:
A law is proposed to set a drink driving limit of 0%. This would be good for TDs whose constituency has a high road death toll, but bad for TDs in constituency with a high dependency of alcohol related industries. To get the vote of the later TDs, a negotiation is needed with a possible second new law to please them (e.g. reduced VAT on alcohol). At the same time, the former TDs might thinking, that they might also get some additional benefits with the law, if they threaten to vote no, so some more negotiation is needed.

It is also difficult on a procedural level. Much legislation is technical and needs specialist knowledge in an area (or staff with this knowledge). It would be impossible for each TD to have the knowledge in all areas in which laws are proposed.

newmug

Whats new? We basically live in a dictatorship, albiet a mild one, but a dictatorship nonetheless.

The more things change, the more they stay the same:mad::mad::mad:

the groutch

mdebets wrote: »

And that's exactly why Ireland needs a whip system.
Imagine for a moment every TD could vote the way he wants. What would happen would be:
The cabinet comes up with a change to a law and wants its TDs to vote for it.
TD A: Road x in my constituency is full of potholes and needs to be be fixed. Unless you do this for me, I won't vote for this law.
TD B: The HSE wants to close the local hospital in my constituency, because it has only 5 patients per year. Unless you prevent this, I won't vote for this law.
TD C: The farmers in my constituency moan about the reduction in their subsidies. Unless you increase them, I won't vote for this law.
And so it would go on for each TD for every law. This system would be unworkable.

most of these TDs are INDEPENDENTS who vote for FF, but are still as their title suggests independent of any party whip and free to vote whatever way they want, and blackmail the government if they can get away with it