Would You Be In Favour Of A Complete Re-Structure In Irish Politics

RockinRolla

A delegation of responsibility to all the provences - each with their own Head of Provence and government buildings overlooking their specific region and reporting to the President in Dublin, whom will receive more power.

A complete restructure of politics in this country is required....what about a federal state...thoughts.

Liam Byrne

Makes no sense. We need to get further away from parish pumps, not closer to them.

Your suggestion would also cause massive imbalance and competition; it's bad enough that DAA undermined Shannon as it did without giving the regions an official sanction to "compete".

Also, the logistic are all wrong; "Ulster" would have just 3 counties, Munster would have 3 separate cities, while Leinster would have 2 cities and Connaught kinda one-and-a-half (sorry Sligo residents).

Part of me once wished that Munster was separate from Dublin, since Dublin seems so out of touch with real life; that's still true, but there's a massive amount of political reform required before we'd even consider giving the localised version of the gombeen men more power.

The restructure that we need is to have between 75 & 100 TDs, all answerable and accountable re targets that they set in their manifesto, that can be fired if, say, 2 out of 3 of those targets aren't met, or if they are shown to have done anything "unbecoming the position of TD" (not given a 20 day paid holiday and then welcomed back with nods and winks)

Coillte_Bhoy

We're way too samll to be a federal state. Could do with rationalsing the local govt structures however. It's madness that we have 29 co councils, 5/6 corporations (?) and god knows how many urban councils for such a small country. Crazy.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Might be an idea when Paisley leads us into a united island and the population grows.

the republic's too small to consider it

Pete_Cavan

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

We're way too samll to be a federal state. Could do with rationalsing the local govt structures however. It's madness that we have 29 co councils, 5/6 corporations (?) and god knows how many urban councils for such a small country. Crazy.

That is one of the main problems in this country, we spend huge amounts of money administering relatively small areas. Also each county has its own development plan which takes little or no account of their neighbours. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Dublin where we have four councils who think they are competing against each other and are actually hampering the development of the city.

We do need to restructure our system of local government but I dont think it should be done along provincial lines because of the huge differences in population. What we need is ~8 regional councils which would be cheaper to run and would see investment focused on the most important infrastructure in the region (ie. a road linking the major towns which may be in two or three different countys would be upgraded instead of the current situation where a more heavily trafficed road may be neglected because each county council wants to focus on roads in their county only).

PeterIanStaker

The kind of restructuring I'd support would be reducing the number of TD's and abolishing the Seanad and maybe PR, and also cutting these fool's expenses by 90%. If they want to go down to Ballygobackwards to open a door in a new off licence for deh pahrty fatefull, they can drive themselves, and hopefully contribute to road accident statistics in the process.

namloc1980

We need to get rid of the Seanad or else radically change it's mandate. As it is it is nothing but a talking shop. My preference would be to scrap it completely. Also get rid of the Office of President. It's another waste of time and money. Reduce the Dáil to 85 TD's - one for every 50,000 population - with a change in the voting system to some kind of party-list system. PR-STV results in too much parish pump politics. Give more power to Local Government to manage local issues. A TD should not be involved in getting potholes fixed or any of that stuff....they should be elected to the Dáil for national issues, not sorting out a passport for John Joe down the road.

later12

There is a restructuring process already underway; it goes something like this

IMF
EU
State
Citizen

goose2005

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Part of me once wished that Munster was separate from Dublin, since Dublin seems so out of touch with real life; that's still true, but there's a massive amount of political reform required before we'd even consider giving the localised version of the gombeen men more power.

But Dublin is the powerhouse of the Irish economy - doesn't it generate 50% of state revenue and only get 25% of state spending, or something?

We do need to have proper local government, which raises taxes locally and spends it locally, rather than toothless councillors claiming big salaries for work of no value while shyster TDs try to divert as much state funds as possible to their own area. Maybe about 10 regional governments would do. And there are many things done at local level that don't need to be - e.g. university grants - did you know there are about 70 different offices for assessing these (one for each county + city, and a VEC for each county + city, and some more for good measure) - all of which get nice big salaries, when a central office would be much cheaper.

My name is URL

I'd love to see the President being handed more power over the executive, while maintaining a system of checks and balances similar to that of the US. Would having someone with the authority to engage with the Dail when necessary be such a bad thing really? I know people view the separation of powers as something of the utmost importance, but it'd be better than the current system of allowing things to reach a critical point before acting, imo.

Civilian_Target

This is much like what happens in Belgium - the country is divided into 3 regions. The problem is that there's too much government there for each region.

Personally, I think simply that there needs to be a devolution of power from central government to local government in Ireland.

Local governments should be consolidated from the 35 County Councils to about 12 regions, so that they can each have their own central hospital, police force, regional fire service, etc. as well as current responsibilities. They should be able to raise money on their own, or have some strong level of financial independence from central government.

After that, central government can be dramatically reduced: get rid of the seanad and half the size of the dail - after all, the only big tickets left to run at a national level would be defense & justice, trade & employment, foreign affairs, culture & tourism and transport.

gandalf

Yes the political system needs a total over haul but I believe the OP's system is unworkable.

These are the steps I would take.

• Abolish the Seanad.
• Reduce the number of TD's to around 100.
• The elections for the Dail to be fulfilled against a total list system.
• Maximum term in office of 3 Dails for all TD's.
• TD's only allowed to deal with national issues.
• If a TD stands down or dies his party replaces them with the next person on the list submitted before the last general election avoiding by-elections.
• TD's pay fixed at 50% above the average wage, Ministers at 25% above TD's wages and the Taoiseach at 25% above Ministers.
• Any state employees that become a TD will have to relinquish their position so it becomes available to a full time employee to fill.
• Dail Holidays reduced to 1 month in the summer, a week at Christmas and 10 working days for the rest of the year.
• Pensions only become active at retirement age and only one can be held.
• Reduce the number of councils to around 5 or 6.
• Councillors to become fulltime paid positions at average wage levels.
• Council elections to occur every two years.
• All political positions subject to a vouched expense scheme with full receipts required.

That is all I can think of for the moment I am sure there are more.

Overheal

That implies extreme constitutional overhaul. Not something to be taken lightly.

namloc1980

gandalf wrote: »

[*]TD's pay fixed at 50% above the average wage, Ministers at 25% above TD's wages and the Taoiseach at 25% above Ministers.

The average per the CSO is c.€36k p.a. so a TD would earn €54k, a Minister €67.5k and the Taoiseach €84k. Do you think these sort of wages would attract the type of people our politics badly needs?

gandalf

namloc1980 wrote: »

The average per the CSO is c.€36k p.a. so a TD would earn €54k, a Minister €67.5k and the Taoiseach €84k. Do you think these sort of wages would attract the type of people our politics badly needs?

Have the current generous salaries succeeded in doing so?

What do you think the levels should be then?

namloc1980

gandalf wrote: »

Have the current generous salaries succeeded in doing so?

What do you think the levels should be then?

I was only asking as a general point of discussion. You are of course right about our current lot who are mostly complete eejits on big salaries but I couldn't imagine who we might get as Taoiseach for €84k p.a. Politics needs a complete culture change and pay is but a small part of it.

gandalf

To be fair I plucked those numbers out of my head. I think we are all in agreement that the current level of remuneration is far too high especially with lack of responsibility and accountability for their actions.

Denerick

You can restructure the superficial all you like, nothing will change. The real cancer in our society are the ordinary citizens who rarely if ever give a damn about issues on a national scale. We're all cute whoors at the end of day, so long as Mayo has its hospital Roscommon can go and burn.

gandalf

Denerick wrote: »

You can restructure the superficial all you like, nothing will change. The real cancer in our society are the ordinary citizens who rarely if ever give a damn about issues on a national scale. We're all cute whoors at the end of day, so long as Mayo has its hospital Roscommon can go and burn.

You bring in a total list system and the local personalities are out the windows. Then those who do vote will have to consider the policies of the parties closely because that is what they are going to be doing over their term in power not filling in the pot holes etc.

Of course you still will have a number of people voting because the leader of party X has a nice hair style or they like the colour of party Y's branding and other such trivialities but at least when the TD's are in place they cannot be distracted by twits asking for local based favours and be expected to turn up at every funeral in the parish like they do at the moment.

brandon_flowers

gandalf wrote: »

Have the current generous salaries succeeded in doing so?

What do you think the levels should be then?

Stephen Green left as chairman of HSBC to become UK Trade Minister in September. He left a salary of £1.25m to take a salary of £0. It's these people we need not some of the highly unqualified people we have at the moment.

Independent01

Well if their current pay gives us the IMF paying half or one third of these amounts might provide us with people really concerned with public service and the national interest. We really need to cop on to ourselves here, put a beggar on horseback and he will (and has) ride to hell.

oncevotedff

RockinRolla wrote: »

A complete restructure of politics in this country is required....what about a federal state...thoughts.

We need less government in this country, not more. It makes no sense to introduce a new layer of administration to a country that could effectively be governed by a committee.

goose2005 wrote: »

But Dublin is the powerhouse of the Irish economy - doesn't it generate 50% of state revenue and only get 25% of state spending, or something?.

My first reaction was What Economy? But I see what you mean. Does Dublin really generate half of state revenue?

gandalf wrote: »

Maximum term in office of 3 Dails for all TD's.

I'd leave it at 2 terms.

• If a TD stands down or dies his party replaces them with the next person on the list submitted before the last general election avoiding by-elections..

Absolutely not. If that system was in place now the worst government in Irish history would comfortably stay in power for another 2 years

• Pensions only become active at retirement age and only one can be held...

A pension after a mere 15 years "work"?

Overheal wrote: »

That implies extreme constitutional overhaul. Not something to be taken lightly.

Any change to the political system would require some amendment to the constitution.

namloc1980 wrote: »

The average per the CSO is c.€36k p.a. so a TD would earn €54k, a Minister €67.5k and the Taoiseach €84k. Do you think these sort of wages would attract the type of people our politics badly needs?

Do we want politics to be a career choice? Or worse, the family business?

Denerick wrote: »

You can restructure the superficial all you like, nothing will change. The real cancer in our society are the ordinary citizens who rarely if ever give a damn about issues on a national scale. We're all cute whoors at the end of day, so long as Mayo has its hospital Roscommon can go and burn.

That's a natural extension of Irish insularity and parochialism. Changing mindsets will be far more difficult than changing the political system.

Pete_Cavan

• TD's pay fixed at 50% above the average wage, Ministers at 25% above TD's wages and the Taoiseach at 25% above Ministers.

I dont think this is a good way to benchmark TD's/Minister's pay. Having it based on the average wage would mean TDs/Ministers would naturally look to increase the average wage, and therefore increasing their own wage. We need to reduce our labour costs in this country and become a low cost economy if we are to prosper. Their wages should be benchmarked against a national disposable income index which would see politicians rewarded for improving the economy and punished for damaging it.

gandalf

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

[/LIST]
I dont think this is a good way to benchmark TD's/Minister's pay. Having it based on the average wage would mean TDs/Ministers would naturally look to increase the average wage, and therefore increasing their own wage. We need to reduce our labour costs in this country and become a low cost economy if we are to prosper. Their wages should be benchmarked against a national disposable income index which would see politicians rewarded for improving the economy and punished for damaging it.

That works for me. TBH I threw the initial point up as a starting point to the discussion on this so others like you could tease out a better way. I am liking that, incentivise them to improve things.

SkepticOne

I would agree with a lot of what has been suggested on this thread. I think the core reforms should be:

1. Removal of multi-seat constituencies. Replace with first past the post single seat constituencies.

2. Proportionality to be provided by a list system. You would get two votes: one for your local TD and one for the party list.

3. A bolstering of genuine local democracy. Some sort of directly elected mayoral system should be instituted.

4. A lowering of salaries for TDs and TD pensions and substantial reform of the expenses system.

The last one normally attracts controversy. A lot of people argue that in order to get the very best people you need to pay a decent salary. I think this only works up to a point. The position of TD should be about public service not money. If you pay too much (as I think we're doing in Ireland) you just get people who are interested in it as a job, i.e., do whatever is needed to hold on to the job (sorting medical cards, passports, planning permissions for constituents) without really caring about legislation or policy.

5. Shut down the Seanad.

mgmt

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

The kind of restructuring I'd support would be reducing the number of TD's and abolishing the Seanad and maybe PR, and also cutting these fool's expenses by 90%. If they want to go down to Ballygobackwards to open a door in a new off licence for deh pahrty fatefull, they can drive themselves, and hopefully contribute to road accident statistics in the process.

+1

Reducing TD numbers will increase the competition for the seats, increasing the caliber of TDs we get and limit the extreme politics we currently have. How many of the green TDs were elected to the final seat? We need a maximum of 100TDs.

molard

how about a fine for anyone that can not be bothered to vote in local and general elections.

Jeboa Safari

I'd be in favour of a system where the party nominates its people for each cabinet position, and then we vote for each party at election, instead of individuals. Hopefully the parties would select qualified people for each position then. Give the county councils a fixed budget to deal with local issues, instead of having the likes of Jackie Healy Rae decide that somewhere needs a hospital. That should be up to the Department of Health, not some gombeen independent shouting me me me the whole time.

mdebets

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

[/LIST]
We need to reduce our labour costs in this country and become a low cost economy if we are to prosper.

That's not going to work. There are too many countries out there who are much more cheaper than Ireland, no matter how low the Irish costs will be cut.
The only way for Ireland to prosper is to work towards an environment, where employers are willing to pay a premium on cost (e.g. well educated workforce, Universities that drive innovations, leadership in technology, etc.)

brandon_flowers

brandon_flowers wrote: »

Stephen Green left as chairman of HSBC to become UK Trade Minister in September. He left a salary of £1.25m to take a salary of £0. It's these people we need not some of the highly unqualified people we have at the moment.

Considering the extra benefits (pension, expenses paid, rates waived) as part of the position as leader of this country, the overall amount would be considered considerably higher than the baseline salary.

TBH though we need people that are idealistic enough to want to lead the country, not those seeking to fill their wallets. Any way.. the people that have the skills and experience needed to run this country would do it as much for the challenge as anything else.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Why is everyone hellbent on abolishing the seanad?

They provide expert recommendations to the dail who for the most part haven't got a clue as half of them are school teachers etc. and are a safeguard against poor legislation being rushed into statute.

As long as there is a whip system we are not represented and democracy here is a show trial. That alone is the most important change. Were I to be really radical I would suggest:


A Taoiseach should not position ministers. The people vote on election day for a Taoiseach (like how a president is elected) and to further that the people should elect all ministries or at the very least a Taoiseach and the minister for finance.

These changes would eliminate party politics & parish pump nonsense immediately.
Also Eliminate the presidency and the seanad

Pete_Cavan

mdebets wrote: »

That's not going to work. There are too many countries out there who are much more cheaper than Ireland, no matter how low the Irish costs will be cut.
The only way for Ireland to prosper is to work towards an environment, where employers are willing to pay a premium on cost (e.g. well educated workforce, Universities that drive innovations, leadership in technology, etc.)

I was not talking about challenging the Chinese in terms of low cost manufacturing. We are not the only country with a well educated workforce and we are far from drives of innovation or leaders in technology. The main reason MNCs are here is because we have a balance between these and lower costs, ie. low corporation tax. If we lower our labour costs we would attract more MNCs as well as attracting more visitor, aiding another of our main industries, tourism. Other countries can compete with us in terms of a well educated workforce, in which case employers will not be willing to pay a premium. We absolutely must lower our labour costs if we are to prosper.

mdebets

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I was not talking about challenging the Chinese in terms of low cost manufacturing. We are not the only country with a well educated workforce and we are far from drives of innovation or leaders in technology. The main reason MNCs are here is because we have a balance between these and lower costs, ie. low corporation tax. If we lower our labour costs we would attract more MNCs as well as attracting more visitor, aiding another of our main industries, tourism. Other countries can compete with us in terms of a well educated workforce, in which case employers will not be willing to pay a premium. We absolutely must lower our labour costs if we are to prosper.

That's a fallacy to believe. In your example, the only differentiator between Ireland and other countries would be the labour cost. If you do this, you can only progress downwards. And there is always someone who is lower priced (and if you compete on price you will always compete against China or India or any of the other low priced countries, if you want to or not). And if you go too low, your workforce will emigrate.

The only way forward is that Ireland needs to diversify itself from other countries. It could for example do that by investing heavily in research in a few areas of technology, where ireland could become leading and therefore would atract companies in these area (foreign and irish) who would be willing to pay premiums (because they couldn't fin the expertice somewhere else)

Liam Byrne

Denerick wrote: »

We're all cute whoors at the end of day

I've promised in good faith not to argue that point in relation to who got greedy and who is responsible, but I don't think that covers new false accusations.

Speak for yourself if you want to.

DO NOT slander the many decent people in this country who despise this type of bull****.

mdebets

Deleted User wrote: »

As long as there is a whip system we are not represented and democracy here is a show trial. That alone is the most important change. Were I to be really radical I would suggest:


A Taoiseach should not position ministers. The people vote on election day for a Taoiseach (like how a president is elected) and to further that the people should elect all ministries or at the very least a Taoiseach and the minister for finance.

These changes would eliminate party politics & parish pump nonsense immediately.
Also Eliminate the presidency and the seanad

I do think these suggestions would make Irish politics even worse than it is now.

An abolishment of the whip would increase parish pump nonsense hundred-fold. For each ne legislation or even for each vote in parliament you would now have to find a new majority. Imagine you would have demands from each TD for each vote. The one wants a new hospital in his constituancy, the other wants a more leniant blood alcohol level, because he is a publican, and so on and on. It would be very unmanageable.

If you vote for the Taoiseach and his ministers seperately or even only for the Taoiseach, you would have a high likelyhood of a stalemate. Look at the US what happens when the House or the Senead are opposed to the President. Legislation gets blocked or watered down, do you really want that. The only way to govern a country efficiently is to have the government and the parliament from the same party or coalition.

Amhran Nua

namloc1980 wrote: »

The average per the CSO is c.€36k p.a. so a TD would earn €54k, a Minister €67.5k and the Taoiseach €84k. Do you think these sort of wages would attract the type of people our politics badly needs?

Do we want the kind of people who are attracted to the position primarily for financial remuneration?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

[/LIST]
We need to reduce our labour costs in this country and become a low cost economy if we are to prosper.

No, labour costs are a marginal issue for most of the FDI that comes to Ireland, and we should work on domestic industries that copy this example. We need to focus on increasing the size and spending power of the middle class, such as it is. Poor people have no money to spend and rich people didn't get that way by spending lots of money.

Kaysen Tinkling Optometry wrote: »

and are a safeguard against poor legislation being rushed into statute.

When did they last provide a check or balance against poor legislation being put through, specifically?

Amhran Nua

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Do we want the kind of people who are attracted to the position primarily for financial remuneration?

Well, considering the qualifications needed for political office in this country the figures listed by namloc1980 are reasonable (although I'd be interested in performance related measures in place to punish/reward them for stupidity/success). With a CEO of a company there would be the requirement of vast experience and proven success in their field. Even if they were moving into an unfamiliar field/industry, they would have the skills proved over time to get the job done. So a CEO, CFO or such in the private sector would have proven potential to get the work done properly, and thus be worth the cost.

Alas the requirements for our political offices are rather on the low side in comparison.

Anyone know what Brian Cowen earned before he entered politics?

When did they last provide a check or balance against poor legislation being put through, specifically?

Spot on. I'm also curious about this.

Amhran Nua

Deleted User wrote: »

So a CEO, CFO or such in the private sector would have proven potential to get the work done properly, and thus be worth the cost.

Of course, but that's all relevant to profit margins and increasing them, which is the point of a corporation. In itself it almost enhances the value of the company - if we can pay our CEO this much, imagine how well we must be doing.

While balancing the books for a country is pretty important, you can't run it in the same way, or with the same assumed goals. I don't see any harm in emphasising this by ensuring that even leaders of the state receive a reasonable enough remuneration package, and by tying this to average (or even better median) wage, you help to ensure that the greater good of the economy and country as a whole is served.

This has large implications, but one immediate benefit is that even in the worst case scenario, if you do get a self serving mé féiner as leader, he or she cannot help but better the situation of the country in order to better their own situation.

Eliot Rosewater

mdebets wrote: »

Look at the US what happens when the House or the Senead are opposed to the President. Legislation gets blocked or watered down, do you really want that.

Erm, yes?! In my opinion, one of the causes of the present crisis is the ability of the PM of this country to do, basically, whatever he wants. Throughout the 2000s Bertie Ahern published many freebie budgets that, in the long term, have been proven to be completely unsustainable. There was no means to stop him: a combination of the whip system, his control of the Dail and the lack of power of the Seanad and the Presidency all reconciled his power. The current Irish political system is about as tyrannical as it could be while still being actually democratic.


There are multiple solutions, but I'm unsure of which one I prefer. You could introduce a list system for the Dail, and have an election every 4 years. For simplicity's sake, the election for President (the office would stay roughly the same) could be held at the same time. There would then be a direct election for Taoiseach, held halfway through the Dail term. As per John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, the supreme power of the country would lie in the legislature but the executive would, naturally, provide some checks on it.

I would be in favour of devolving more power to local bodies. This would provide a major check on the federal government. You could abolish the Seanad or keep it as a "council of States" tasked with representing each State of the federation, in a similar vein to the US Senate or the EU Council of Ministers. I don't know if this would be necessary in as small a country as Ireland.


In any case, I think in designing a new system of government for Ireland one's inspiration shouldn't be drawn from the current system which, in my humble opinion, is completely inadequate. A better template might be the United States.

Lockstep

+1 Eliot.

I like the idea of the Senate being replaced with a new body, perhaps with 15 representatives from each of the European constituencies (Connaunt-Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Dublin maybe) with more powers than the useless Senate.

I also support devolution of powers. I appreciate we're a tiny nation but the centralization we have isn't very healthy.

Used to be dead against a party-list system but lately I've been warming to the idea.

Denerick

I've always been skeptical about a strong executive - in America it makes sense to have the President with broad autonomy in foreign affairs but for a small island nation like Ireland our foreign policy is pretty much irrelevant. Obama makes the great world spin, Mc Aleese turns up for Paddys day and does the whole diddly aye act.

I think a strong parliamentary system that attracts people of conviction is the best alternative. Something like the ancient Roman ideal. Virtue built upon honour. I say ideal because the Ancient Roman Republic was in actuality a corrupt quagmire, but alas.

Amhran Nua

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Of course, but that's all relevant to profit margins and increasing them, which is the point of a corporation. In itself it almost enhances the value of the company - if we can pay our CEO this much, imagine how well we must be doing.

Yes, in part. But how many companies hire directors missing the relevant qualifications and experience? And then believe them worth the industry standard, or more? - Not many, because they wouldn't last very long as companies.

While balancing the books for a country is pretty important, you can't run it in the same way, or with the same assumed goals. I don't see any harm in emphasising this by ensuring that even leaders of the state receive a reasonable enough remuneration package, and by tying this to average (or even better median) wage, you help to ensure that the greater good of the economy and country as a whole is served.

I'm not expecting the country to be run the same way as a company or corporation. Obviously, that would be dangerous for everyone concerned.

However, I see very little reason for the current set of salaries for our politicians. Frankly, it doesn't make sense on any level. They're not meeting the basic requirements of their positions (when was the last time you saw the Dail even half-filled for a regular session?). The government has shown an inability to report honestly to the people (its shareholders) on the status of the country, and moreso are willing to lie about the state of affairs to cover up mistakes. Hell, never mind the corruption that rests between our politicians, property developers, and the banks.

All in all, I have to wonder why our politicians are earning such amounts. Its not as if they have earned them. Let future politicians earn increased amounts if the country has performed well enough to warrant it. But they should be reviewed annually in consideration to the state of the economy/country by independent sources.

This has large implications, but one immediate benefit is that even in the worst case scenario, if you do get a self serving mé féiner as leader, he or she cannot help but better the situation of the country in order to better their own situation.

I totally agree with you on this.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I would be in favour of devolving more power to local bodies.

Only insofar as it reduces the focus of TDs on the local level. I'm not overall in favour of allowing local authorities to have full or even majority control over raising revenue in their area, since these entities have no incentive to consider the national level issues, and so might pursue policies counterproductive to these considerations en masse.

Most concerns people have locally would not have a massive impact on local budgets however (fixing fences and pot holes, that sort of thing), allowing scope for both national directives and local issues to be resolved simultaneously. Something like direct democracy on the local level might be of value given that - its worth noting that most of the few countries that also use the STV system only use it for their local elections, not national elections like us.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A better template might be the United States.

Why would we want the same system that put GW Bush into power for two consecutive terms, here.

Deleted User wrote:

However, I see very little reason for the current set of salaries for our politicians. Frankly, it doesn't make sense on any level.

I see no point of disagreement between us.

FoxT

I think the following should be examined:

Keep PR & multiseat constituencies. Otherwise the electorate will be Gerrymandered into oblivion.

Reduce no. of TDs by 50%

Keep the seanad, but all seats elected in the same way dail seats are.

Develop meaningful local authorities (somehow) , elections every 2 years for 50% of the councillors.(More PR)

Possibly 1 authority per province, or similar. They should be funded via a universal property tax.

Education, Health, defence,justice, foreign affairs, the prerogative of central govt. local authorities do everything else.

Legislate/regulate parish pump politics out of existence - thats what the local/provincial councils will be for.

Establish a specialist group of economists in the dept of finance.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Amhran Nua wrote: »

When did they last provide a check or balance against poor legislation being put through, specifically?

I believe the last outright disapproval was in 1964. However have a read of this:
http://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?gid=2010-07-13.264.0
and consider the fact that they (successfully) suggest many amendments to bills before they are passed.

ISAW

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

...Dublin where we have four councils who think they are competing against each other and are actually hampering the development of the city.

We do need to restructure our system of local government but I dont think it should be done along provincial lines ...What we need is ~8 regional councils which would be cheaper to run and would see investment focused on the most important infrastructure in the region

in effect this will have to happen. there are regional councils already but they have no real power. It will have to happen because we are a net contributor to the EU. If however we restructure the poorer regions of Ireland can still get EU funding for them.

ISAW

Kaysen Tinkling Optometry wrote: »

Why is everyone hellbent on abolishing the seanad?

They provide expert recommendations to the dail who for the most part haven't got a clue as half of them are school teachers etc. and are a safeguard against poor legislation being rushed into statute.

Indeed of the top of my head I believe there were over 150 ammendments to the Education Bill and to the Disability Bill in the last Seanad. the congress and senate in the US has a similar amalgam of Bills where finance acts can come from either house and get trashed out. The Seanad does not have that level of power.

ISAW

gandalf wrote: »

To be fair I plucked those numbers out of my head. I think we are all in agreement that the current level of remuneration is far too high especially with lack of responsibility and accountability for their actions.

But this isnt the fault of politicians! It is the fault of unions for senior ranking public servants! For ever TD or Senator there is at least ten times as many senior admin on the same whack! And they are unsackable! Even less accountability then elected politicians for whom you can chose not to vote. They (unions) even nominate people to the senate!

So if you want to change things you have to take on unions and social partners. ~What political party has the guts to do that?

Amhran Nua

Kaysen Tinkling Optometry wrote: »

I believe the last outright disapproval was in 1964.

Can you clarify, what is "disapproval", what does that mean in this context?

ISAW wrote: »

And they are were unsackable!

Amended that to reflect current events.

ISAW

SkepticOne wrote: »

I would agree with a lot of what has been suggested on this thread. I think the core reforms should be:

all your reform is about electoral system reform. It may be fo some benefit but it is fiddling really. You will end up with much the same. Less TD doing more legislation and less constituency work and constant change of TDs and lack of continuity at local level.

How about actually changing the system!

Directly elect the Taoiseach and let him/her chose whoever they want as ministers ( whether they are elected or not). If a TD or Senator is made a minister then you have a by election (or a co opted nominee) to fill their place.

That Dail and Seanad then can have the Ministers come to them or to sub committees and hold the Minister ( or the Humphry Appleby senior admin) to account. Ministers can be appointed or sacked by the Taoiseach. the Taoiseach can only be sacked by something like a two thirds vote of the Dail.

change the election system for the Seanad.