Single Term Politicians

scotty_irish

Been thinking about this a while - what if TDs were only allowed serve one term. Most of the time their only concern is re-election so if this was taken out of the equation? On the other hand, would we have a bunch of single issue candidates unable to form a majority government? I believe that TDs must make unpopular decisions and often be hated in order to do what needs doing. This takes a group of very brave people who know that they risk losing their job for the good of the people. However, this is what should be expected of our elected representatives (ideal world). This would put an end to career politicians who have no real world experience. However, I'm fully aware that this will never happen as no TD is going to vote to lose their job. Opinions please!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

scotty_irish

I agree with some of your points re experience. But often the things that get a TD re-elected have nothing to do with doing a good job, more like pandering to a certain group etc, not making the tough decisions that must be made. Rarely would a TD be re-elected for making cuts, FG or Labour would be decimated if they were to do what needs doing. Also, FF would have dropped a lot sooner than they did had they taken steps to prevent this crisis. All to do with remaining popular. Maybe some system with a higher minimum age (40+ or older, people towards the end of their careers who have worked all their lives) than there currently is before being elected to either council/Dail and maybe not single term but 10 years maximum as a TD.

Dammer

Maybe not single term, but it could be limited to two or three terms.

Thereby you will have TD's with at least 10 years experience working with newer ones to the Dail.

On the plus side we get rid of the career politicians.... Look what they have left us with. :mad:

Coriolanus

I'm not sure how the above post isn't a reflection of the status quo?

Anyway, all seriousness aside, I think the downsides outweigh the ups. Given the problem that OP is trying to solve it would make more sense to limit what kind of interactions and representations a TD can legally make. Pull their snouts out of the parish pump, so to speak.

scotty_irish

scotty_irish wrote: »

Been thinking about this a while - what if TDs were only allowed serve one term. Most of the time their only concern is re-election so if this was taken out of the equation? On the other hand, would we have a bunch of single issue candidates unable to form a majority government? I believe that TDs must make unpopular decisions and often be hated in order to do what needs doing. This takes a group of very brave people who know that they risk losing their job for the good of the people. However, this is what should be expected of our elected representatives (ideal world). This would put an end to career politicians who have no real world experience. However, I'm fully aware that this will never happen as no TD is going to vote to lose their job. Opinions please!

They'd have no incentive toward anything except very short term gains, as far as I can see. Too many disputes to form a coherent long term plan.

No, I don't think this would be a good idea.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

scotty_irish

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True again. Some good points being made against. But anyone have some alternative suggestions as clearly the current system isn't working. Thoughts on a directly elected Taoiseach with a certain percentage of ministers appointed from TDs and some appointed without election (perhaps experts in their areas) to the various portfolios? And real experts, not the many clueless experts we hear from on a daily basis.

dan_d

I have wondered about this a lot lately.

I wonder would it be a better option to limit the rule of a party to a number of terms, eg 2, and the rule of their party leader to something similar. Take Bertie. He was in power as leader of FF for - 13 years?? What if we had a situation whereby FF could only have been in power for say....10 years...and Bertie only in power for 5 of those years? (damage limitation) And if, as leader of a party, you fulfill those 5 years, you cannot rerun as leader of the party until a long period has passed - eg 15 years (since we go in for lifetime politicians around here), or maybe not at all.

Restrict it even further an say you cannot step out as Toaiseach, then back in as Tanaiste - those 2 positions, at the very least, need to be off limits to being repeatedly filled by the same people.

Might that work??

Zubeneschamali

scotty_irish wrote: »

But anyone have some alternative suggestions as clearly the current system isn't working.

Stop voting for gombeens.

scotty_irish

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Stop voting for gombeens.

I've accepted that people are always going to vote for gombeens. Because only gombeens run.

Pepe LeFrits

dan_d wrote: »

I have wondered about this a lot lately.

I wonder would it be a better option to limit the rule of a party to a number of terms, eg 2, and the rule of their party leader to something similar. Take Bertie. He was in power as leader of FF for - 13 years?? What if we had a situation whereby FF could only have been in power for say....10 years...and Bertie only in power for 5 of those years? (damage limitation) And if, as leader of a party, you fulfill those 5 years, you cannot rerun as leader of the party until a long period has passed - eg 15 years (since we go in for lifetime politicians around here), or maybe not at all.

Restrict it even further an say you cannot step out as Toaiseach, then back in as Tanaiste - those 2 positions, at the very least, need to be off limits to being repeatedly filled by the same people.

Might that work??

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of term limits for TDs, perhaps with additional terms allowed for party leaders/front benchers, but limiting a party from ruling for more than 2 terms? Ney.

Also considering our governments don't always run for a full five year term, how does that effect it? If you get 2 coalition governments collapsing in the space of 6 months, does that prevent all coalition TDs from running again?

I do agree though that being an elected representative should be considered less as a lifelong career, and more as a civic duty, a temporary diversion from one's primary career.

COYW

Dammer wrote: »

Maybe not single term, but it could be limited to two or three terms.

So what happens if we have someone who is naturally made for politics and excellent at his or her job? Do we just dump them out after 3 terms and replace them with someone half as good?

dan_d

Not necessarily. I just think that the fact that a politician (again, Bertie Ahern as an example) in rule over the country for a long period of time is not good for the person or the country. They become complacent as do we. Habits develop, it's the same way of thinking all the time.....I think we need to take a long hard look at what happened in the last 10 -15 years and use it as an opportunity to tweak the system. I mean, depending on what side you're on in the USA, Obama could be considered excellent at what he does (politics), but he can't be in office for more than 2 terms.Admittedly they've a different governing system, but still....

I'm not sure how exactly we could work it. I've no doubt greater minds than mine could come up with a system. But surely limiting terms in either certain offices (eg, Taoiseach and Tanaiste) or for a party to govern would be better than the swings and roundabouts we've had over the last 10-15 years, and also the last 80 years?? Mind you, I do think it's something that needs to be very carefully considered and implemented, to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot completely.

Seloth

So people may hate what Im about to say but some peole are born to be politicians.

I dont mean the negative stereotype either with backhanded dealings but politics is a skill that some people are born with,and I'd rather have a person like that in for a long term rather then have them in once.

later12

dan_d wrote: »

Not necessarily. I just think that the fact that a politician (again, Bertie Ahern as an example) in rule over the country for a long period of time is not good for the person or the country. They become complacent as do we. Habits develop, it's the same way of thinking all the time.....

I don't fully agree. Look at Sean Lemass, at the same time the most under-recognized and, ironically, most broadly supported Taoiseach since independence. 22 years at the cabinet table, seven of those as Taoiseach. He had a much longer ministerial career than Bertie.

Having said that, it is possible that Lemass is the exception that makes the rule. Irish political leaders from the Home Rule movement to the De Valera Governments to the Fianna Fail led governments of 1997 - 2010 have repeatedly been accused of a somewhat Macbethian loss of integrity, or political initiative, while at the top.

Nevertheless, I think there may be more ideal solutions to keeping leadership well concentrated on their duties with fresh ideas, and in fact we may have to look no further than yesterday's Nyberg report to find them.

dan_d

A fair point, but equally, how do you seperate them from the rest? Like anything, not every Taoiseach is fit for the job, but equally some are very good. Charlie Haughey....objectively, quite a good politician, but equally, a complete crook.Bertie Ahern...a so-called "man of the people", knew how to network, knew how to get votes, knew how to play politics, but my God was he dodgy. It's difficult, particularly in Irish politics when the playing field is so small.

I suppose my take on it is that you can't have one rule for "great" people and another rule for the rest, and you do have to safeguard the country in some way. Past performance has shown us that not always those who are made for politics end up in power. It's all very well to say "what if we find someone who is great, do we just toss them out after X terms?". That's not really the thinking. It's more along the lines of limiting the amount of damage someone who is really awful can do - and history has shown that we've had quite a number of them. And the what if argument is all very well if you assume we HAVE any good politicians....I'm not sure we do....and then assume that they get into power.

So far, FG are making good noises and shaping up to be halfway decent, but the majority of the work they're doing is cleaning up after the complete shambles that happened in recent years. Which is "great" and all, compared to what went behind them, but....surely they could show their effectiveness in much better terms if they were in power in a country that was not so broke, that was on a much more even keel? It's easy to spend, spend, spend while there's money - it takes a very strong politician (individual even) to put the brakes on and resist the urge to splash the cash, but invest wisely and use restraint.

I'm getting off topic here, but I think what I'm trying to say is that it's more about damage limitation, as we've seen the amount of damage that can be done by one who is a good politician but a weak individual.

southsiderosie

dan_d wrote: »

I'm getting off topic here, but I think what I'm trying to say is that it's more about damage limitation, as we've seen the amount of damage that can be done by one who is a good politician but a weak individual.

The damage control mechanism is the ballot. Irish voters weren't forced to re-elect FF & Ahern multiple times. And unlike the US, Irish voters aren't shackled to an election schedule; they can 'throw the bums out' whenever they want.

I am consistently amazed by how powerless people in Ireland seem to feel in the face of their government. They didn't just magically appear in the Dail, voters put them there. At the end of the day, voters have the power to MAKE some politicians one-termers, but they generally don't. I think this has more to do with political culture and incumbency advantage than Irish electoral rules and institutions.

Dammer

COYW wrote: »

So what happens if we have someone who is naturally made for politics and excellent at his or her job? Do we just dump them out after 3 terms and replace them with someone half as good?

I do not believe that anyone is naturally good at politics. All major world leaders, have speech writers. Have climbed their respective parties, through common sense, personality, ass kissing, back-stabbing and deal making with both friend and foe.

I cannot think of any Irish TD past or present who is/was excellent at their job (national legislator or if you prefer "Messenger to the People")

Thanks to X-Factor, Pop Idol and Morons without Talent, we place charisma, personality and "girl/man of the people" characteristics more important then selecting honourable, trustworthy, work ethic oriented individuals and honesty for our Dail.

Do you not look and listen at our Politicians being interviewed, it seems the only skill they require is the ability to avoid answering the question for as long as possible, and to quote, stats on spending, or what the Gov. of the Central Bank said and out of context in most cases.

We need to get rid of these career politicians so yes just dump them, they are paid very well by international standards, receive generous pensions after only 2.5 years (Why do you think that the Greens were going to swap Ministerial positions with GoGo and Cuffe halfway through term) and if we are lucky they might do a good job.

Can you say if any of our elected representatives have done a good job recently say for example in the last 8-10 years... That goes for ALL of them. We need a change... Badly

Limit the damage they can do, by limiting their time as legislators.