Labours proposals

smallBiscuit

Hi, I haven't seen this posted/discussed anywhere. Looks like labour themselves aren't pushing it. URL="http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/12943264241775893.html"]Here's a link to Labour's plans for political changes if elected[/URL]. I have to say I think they've just won my vote*, even if they only implement a third of what they propose.
Some highlights:

• Labour will Introduce a package of changes that will bring about a 50 per cent increase in Dáil sitting days.
• Labour proposes to break the Government monopoly on legislation, and the stranglehold over the business of the Dáil, by providing that the new Friday sittings will be given over exclusively to committee reports and private members business except where urgent government business must be taken.
• Labour will enhance the democratic process by involving public representatives at an earlier stage of the legislative process
• An Independent Fiscal Advisory Council
• Labour in Government will conduct a Comprehensive Spending Review to examine all areas of public spending, based on the Canadian model, and to develop multi-annual budget plans with a three-year time horizon
• The Book of Estimates will be accompanied by a detailed performance report on what the previous year’s spending had achieved

* Damn I just realized who my local Labour guy is, Emmet Stagg, who I hate (having meet personally)

Eliot Rosewater

smallBiscuit wrote: »

Damn I just realized who my local Labour guy is, Emmet Stagg, who I hate (having meet personally)

I don't want to sway your vote, but I think it's worth remarking that the policies you like are all national policies, and that Emmet Stagg's abilities as a national legislator (particularly within the strong whip system) are completely independent of his personality. I really don't care if I never meet my TDs and find them nice - all I want from them is that they pursue policy in the Dail that I would like to see pursued.

Pherekydes

smallBiscuit wrote: »

• Labour will Introduce a package of changes that will bring about a 50 per cent increase in Dáil sitting days.

This is a non-runner. If they proposed a 20% increase the right-wingers in the Dáil would recoil in horror. 10-15% might have gotten support.

I didn't read the whole list of proposals. Was there anything in there about reducing the number of TDs?

Another probable non-runner is the proposal to extend the Dáil's working day.

smallBiscuit

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't want to sway your vote, but I think it's worth remarking that the policies you like are all national policies, and that Emmet Stagg's abilities as a national legislator (particularly within the strong whip system) are completely independent of his personality. I really don't care if I never meet my TDs and find them nice - all I want from them is that they pursue policy in the Dail that I would like to see pursued.

I know, I will vote for him, but my preference would be to vote in somebody else's catchment area, so as not to help elect him

smallBiscuit

Pherekydes wrote: »

This is a non-runner. If they proposed a 20% increase the right-wingers in the Dáil would recoil in horror. 10-15% might have gotten support.

I didn't read the whole list of proposals. Was there anything in there about reducing the number of TDs?

Another probable non-runner is the proposal to extend the Dáil's working day.

Doesn't matter, even a partial would satisfy me. + think of the public outrage, if the polititions said "no I don't want to work a week as long as 4 days"
On the reducing the numbers thing, I'm not sure, the brief entry could be read as decrease or increase
here it is (page 8)
"We will revise the terms of reference for the revision of constituencies so as to ensure
the most proportionate arrangement of constituencies that is achievable, having regard
to practical and relevant considerations. The fundamental requirement must be to protect and
give effect to the proportionality of the system as a whole – that there is a close approximation
between overall votes cast and overall seats won. Therefore, the number of deputies elected
in five seat constituencies should predominate and recourse to three and four seaters should
be regarded as a departure from the norm, justified perhaps by the necessity to
accommodate special circumstances."

sligopark

• Labour in Government will conduct a Comprehensive Spending Review to examine all areas of public spending, based on the Canadian model, and to develop multi-annual budget plans with a three-year time horizon

unlikely in regard to healthcare - too many vested interests - even the canadians had trouble bringing in all recommendations from health care economists

but hey Labour - go on big your talk up!

the groutch

I thought their promise of a new constitution was even more significant

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0106/breaking53.html

ISAW

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't want to sway your vote, but I think it's worth remarking that the policies you like are all national policies, and that Emmet Stagg's abilities as a national legislator (particularly within the strong whip system) are completely independent of his personality. I really don't care if I never meet my TDs and find them nice - all I want from them is that they pursue policy in the Dail that I would like to see pursued.

So you would vote for Charlie Haughey because he balanced the budget or paid off the national debt even if his personal finances didn't have the same standards?

ISAW

smallBiscuit wrote: »

Hi, I haven't seen this posted/discussed anywhere. Looks like labour themselves aren't pushing it. URL="http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/12943264241775893.html"]Here's a link to Labour's plans for political changes if elected[/URL]. I have to say I think they've just won my vote*, even if they only implement a third of what they propose.
Some highlights:

[*]Labour will Introduce a package of changes that will bring about a 50 per cent increase in Dáil sitting days.

Which ones? Cut holidays and make the dail sit on some Mondays and Fridays?
Where is there a list of dail siting days for the last ten years?
You might find the present government has done this already.

[*]Labour proposes to break the Government monopoly on legislation, and the stranglehold over the business of the Dáil, by providing that the new Friday sittings will be given over exclusively to committee reports and private members business except where urgent government business must be taken.

Great.
How will they do this? Again this is opposition speak but in government they will probably do the opposite because they don't make any specific promises in advance of an election.

[*]Labour will enhance the democratic process by involving public representatives at an earlier stage of the legislative process

Again - How? In what specific way will TDs be more involved?

[*]An Independent Fiscal Advisory Council

another quango? Dont we already have independent people like the central bank governor, NAMA, NTMA, etc?

[*]Labour in Government will conduct a Comprehensive Spending Review to examine all areas of public spending, based on the Canadian model, and to develop multi-annual budget plans with a three-year time horizon

Seems similar to Ireland anyway
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2010/index-eng.asp

What will Labour cut? what will they tax more?
I doubt they will cut the salary of public workers so what public spending will they cut?
They just dont offer any specifics in advance of an election.
If they knock on my door I will ask "what will you cut and what will you tax"?
That's what I want answered.

[*]The Book of Estimates will be accompanied by a detailed performance report on what the previous year’s spending had achieved

Hmmm. It achieves the continued running of the public service. I dont understand what this means. It seems to mean they will cut public spending but they don't know what and they will just issue orders to departments to cut by saty ten percent and then next year tell us what those departments cut! why cant they say what they will cut in advance of an election?

Eliot Rosewater

ISAW wrote: »

So you would vote for Charlie Haughey because he balanced the budget or paid off the national debt even if his personal finances didn't have the same standards?

Well, not necessarily. If someone's personal finances are dodgy, it's probable that they're in receipt of bribes, and that will affect their role as national legislator.

ISAW

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well, not necessarily. If someone's personal finances are dodgy, it's probable that they're in receipt of bribes, and that will affect their role as national legislator.

And what if they are not in receipt of bribes?
assuming they arent a covert criminal either you think someones personal life comes into how you vote for them or you don't. which is it?
You will note charlie Haughey did not commit any crime. He avoided tax but eventually settled that with the revenue. But he was not found guilty of a crime. Stag on the other hand was not charged with a crime but did something which he himself admitted to be against the criminal law. Now he doesn't claim to be a moral pillar so I wont personally attach any personal life behavior to political office he holds. all the same I hear about politicians who are separated and their children who also are and then both of their partners arrive for a cosy happy families photo shoot when the selection convention comes around. Apparently he didnt get selected though.

Eliot Rosewater

ISAW wrote: »

And what if they are not in receipt of bribes?
assuming they arent a covert criminal either you think someones personal life comes into how you vote for them or you don't. which is it?

If someone's personal life has a tangible effect on their ability as a national legislator, or their policy position, then I will factor that in to my voting choice. Mostly I don't care. Marital status, skin colour, country of birth, sexual preference etc don't factor in. Unless, of course, I was a social conservative, in which case those attributes would be indicative of a clash of policy. But I'm not.

Laminations

ISAW wrote: »

And what if they are not in receipt of bribes?
assuming they arent a covert criminal either you think someones personal life comes into how you vote for them or you don't. which is it?
You will note charlie Haughey did not commit any crime. He avoided tax but eventually settled that with the revenue. But he was not found guilty of a crime. Stag on the other hand was not charged with a crime but did something which he himself admitted to be against the criminal law. Now he doesn't claim to be a moral pillar so I wont personally attach any personal life behavior to political office he holds. all the same I hear about politicians who are separated and their children who also are and then both of their partners arrive for a cosy happy families photo shoot when the selection convention comes around. Apparently he didnt get selected though.

There is a difference between not wanting to vote for someone because of small imperfections (e.g. you don't like the way they smile, or you think them a cold person) versus small to more serious actions (e.g. Rent boys in the park to accepting bribes or merely using your office to enrich yourself). Staggs past actions don't impact on his ability to put the country first or legislate without interference but a character such as Haugheys 'dodginess' should signal alarm bells. The OP said he met Stagg and didn't like him, that's surplus to requirements when voting in competent and trustworthy representations.

The_Minister

Pherekydes wrote: »

This is a non-runner. If they proposed a 20% increase the right-wingers in the Dáil would recoil in horror. 10-15% might have gotten support.

....

Another probable non-runner is the proposal to extend the Dáil's working day.

What does right or left wing have to do with any of that?

The Dail sitting days and hours are designed to facilitate TDs from outside Dublin, particularly those from far away constituencies such as Donegal.

It's an urban-rural issue, not a left-right one.

ArtSmart

plus it's not the amt of days, it's turning up and it's proper dissemination of proposals before the Dail meet.

Einhard

I like the idea of a properly empowered Fiscal Council. If we had had an independent body to pronounce on the proposals of all parties during the last election, and on FF's fiscal policies over the past ten years, then much of the current economic crisis might have been avoided.

I think increasing the Dail sitting days is a bit of a red herring though. What if all legislation planned for a term has passed before the Dail rises?

ISAW

Laminations wrote: »

There is a difference between not wanting to vote for someone because of small imperfections (e.g. you don't like the way they smile, or you think them a cold person) versus small to more serious actions (e.g. Rent boys in the park to accepting bribes or merely using your office to enrich yourself). Staggs past actions don't impact on his ability to put the country first or legislate without interference but a character such as Haugheys 'dodginess' should signal alarm bells. The OP said he met Stagg and didn't like him, that's surplus to requirements when voting in competent and trustworthy representations.

These are strange standards. You wont vote for Haughey who looks "dodgy" (whatever crime that is) but has never been charged or convicted of a crime ( althought I don't know if he was charged with anything during the Arms trial certainly not convicted of anything) but Stag who admitted to committing a crime which was the illegal corruption of a minor ( the boy was under age) is okay to vote for because you trust him???

Dont you think that depicts a slightly politically coloured view?

ISAW

Einhard wrote: »

I like the idea of a properly empowered Fiscal Council. If we had had an independent body to pronounce on the proposals of all parties during the last election, and on FF's fiscal policies over the past ten years, then much of the current economic crisis might have been avoided.

I think increasing the Dail sitting days is a bit of a red herring though. What if all legislation planned for a term has passed before the Dail rises?

Personally I dotn like the system. I would like the seanad MORE involved and more legislation beginning there. I would also like the cabinet to be seleted by the Taoiseach from whoever he wants, TD or not. Maybe to do that one would have to elect a Taoiseach in a different way other than being voted on by the Dail.

Lockstep

Seems like some solid policies.

However, will all these independent commissions merely be additional quangos?

southsiderosie

ISAW wrote: »

And what if they are not in receipt of bribes?
assuming they arent a covert criminal either you think someones personal life comes into how you vote for them or you don't. which is it?
You will note charlie Haughey did not commit any crime. He avoided tax but eventually settled that with the revenue. But he was not found guilty of a crime. Stag on the other hand was not charged with a crime but did something which he himself admitted to be against the criminal law. Now he doesn't claim to be a moral pillar so I wont personally attach any personal life behavior to political office he holds. all the same I hear about politicians who are separated and their children who also are and then both of their partners arrive for a cosy happy families photo shoot when the selection convention comes around. Apparently he didnt get selected though.

I think tax problems in politicians are actually more problematic that personal foibles.* What would happen to the average person if they fiddled around with their taxes? A lack of transparency and lax fiscal oversight of government agencies, the Dail itself, and - in particular - its individual members are at the root of 80% of what is wrong with the Irish political system.

Although I like the idea of a fiscal oversight committee in theory, in practice I fear this would just become another expensive quango. I think it would be much more effective to just have more fiscal transparency and accountability from the start, including Sunshine Laws governing both formal and informal meetings, mandatory disclosure of tax returns and assets by both Dial members and heads of key agencies (such as FAS, although in an ideal world they would be shut down, pronto), and better whistleblower protection. There should also be stiffer penalties for both white collar crime and agencies that do not comply with Freedom of Information requests.


*Unless a legislator is a social conservative who harps on about family values, but is cheating on tier wife and/or secretly gay.

johnnyskeleton

the groutch wrote: »

I thought their promise of a new constitution was even more significant

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0106/breaking53.html

I normally quite like Labour, but have to laugh at this frankly ridiculous idea:

The convention would be made up a 90 people drawn comprised of 30 Oireachtas members; 30 lawyers, specialists, and academics; and 30 ordinary citizens, drawn randomly in the same way a jury is selected.
“The mandate would be to review the Constitution and draft a reformed one with a year,” states the paper.

30 politicians, 30 lawyers and 30 random people put into a room and asked to draw up a constitution.

Firstly, they haven't a clue as to what they think is wrong with the current constitution. Second, change for change's sake is not always a good thing, and there are better things to update e.g. criminal code, than the constitution. Third, presenting a brand new constitution that we have to vote on en bloc is a terrible idea - what if it has a few good ideas for electoral reform but controversial ideas such as abortion etc.

Fourth, it takes an enormous amount of time for a few people to debate one relatively small issue - see the big debates on child protection, abortion, divorce, separating church and state, electoral reform, right to a fair trial, individual liberties, free speech v. reputation etc. I simply can't imagine how any of these topics, or even a relatively minor amendment could be discussed by 90 disparate people in any co-herent way.

Fifth, redrafting the constitution in a single year is madness. Sixth, what parties will the politicians come from? Seventh, who will chose the lawyers (i.e. will they be pro human rights, pro state, a mix of both or have no real interest or expertise either way)? Eight, will the ordinary people be paid or have to give up their jobs to do it?

Sounds like the kind of idea one might get after a long night parttaking in illegal substances.

FreudianSlippers

smallBiscuit wrote: »

Labour proposes to break the Government monopoly on legislation, and the stranglehold over the business of the Dáil

What on Earth does this mean?


The list of proposals is so vague and silly. They're not really concrete or actual proposals for how they will get things done.

Lockstep

OisinT wrote: »

What on Earth does this mean?


The list of proposals is so vague and silly. They're not really concrete or actual proposals for how they will get things done.

From the policy document:

Labour proposes to break the Government monopoly on legislation, and the stranglehold over the business of the Dáil, by providing that the new Friday sittings will be given overexclusively to committee reports and private members business except where urgentgovernment business must be taken.

Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to see more leeway given to non-governmental parties as the current PMB system is quite restrictive.

johnnyskeleton

kickoutthejams wrote: »

From the policy document:


Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to see more leeway given to non-governmental parties as the current PMB system is quite restrictive.

Exactly. The dail should be a proper parliament and not just something that rubberstamps whatever legislation the government proposes and reject out of hand any private members bills.

However, it is one thing for Labour to want this when they are in opposition, it is another to introduce those reforms during their reign.

brendankelly

Will labour stop Berty selling over 1 million acres of Irish Land (coillte)???

OH I forgot It is happening and Labour do not even know about it.