Abolish Seanad

PRAF

raymon wrote: »

Willie ( come here till I tell you a lie) o Dea was arguing for relaxation of the whip system on VB last night.

Great, he's a pretty influential guy in FF. Lets see if he can convince the FF party to change their internal whip system. They can then be a shining example to show the other parties how to do it.

Or, Willie could seek to setup an all party committee or raise a private members bill to limit / curb the ability of political parties to apply the whip system in the Dail.

We live in hope....

micosoft

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure of that, the Taoiseach himself pretty much conceded yesterday that reform must now take place. There is a general consensus that it cannot continue in the manner that it currently operates..

I also listened to him and some of the others such as Bruton. They committed to nothing and said reform needed to be looked at; and they needed to say this to avoid looking petulant on the day. I suspect the Govt. will go very quiet on it for the next couple of weeks and wait for the next scandal (Gerry Adams will do nicely) to blow over. It's not on their programme.

On the other hand it will be interesting to see if the Senators themselves come up with a coherent plan to reform the Seaned. They whinged enough about it during the campaign - it's really up to the Senators and not the Govt. which clearly thought no meaningful reform was possible. And turning the Seaned into a Mini Dail or creating a gridlock system US style is not good reform.

And also up to FF to scratch out the abolish the Seaned line in their manifesto and replace it with what they think is, presuming of course it was not a cynical ploy....

An Coilean

micosoft wrote: »

I also listened to him and some of the others such as Bruton. They committed to nothing and said reform needed to be looked at; and they needed to say this to avoid looking petulant on the day. I suspect the Govt. will go very quiet on it for the next couple of weeks and wait for the next scandal (Gerry Adams will do nicely) to blow over. It's not on their programme.

I'm sure they would love for it to just quietly go away, but they dragged the issue into the middle of the public arena. Campaign groups that were formed to work for a No vote during the referendum have not gone away. People like the TD's in the 'reform group' are still there and still more than happy to make noise about the issue, its a stick that the opposition wont get tired of beating the government with and you can be sure the media wont be letting them off the hook for it either. The Government said far too much about the seanad and how bad it currently is to not be damaged by doing noting about it.

At the end of the day, there are plenty of people in FG who had no interest in Seanad abolition and who actually want to see it reformed, there is nothing to be gained from not doing it except flack from the opposition and the media while reforming it won't damage them in any way.
Aside from sour grapes, there is really no reason for them to not do it.

On the other hand it will be interesting to see if the Senators themselves come up with a coherent plan to reform the Seaned. They whinged enough about it during the campaign - it's really up to the Senators and not the Govt. which clearly thought no meaningful reform was possible. And turning the Seaned into a Mini Dail or creating a gridlock system US style is not good reform.

They already have, Quinn/Zappone and Crown bills are already there, either would make a solid basis for reform legislation with ammendments at committee stage.

Mr.Micro

raymon wrote: »

Willie ( come here till I tell you a lie) o Dea was arguing for relaxation of the whip system on VB last night.

Was hard to know if he was telling more lies.

Which Willie was it.... he looks like somebody from a pantomime. He was just on about relaxation, because it costs him nothing, and looks good on TV. The reality is FF would no more adapt relaxation than FG.

PRAF

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Which Willie was it.... he looks like somebody from a pantomime. He was just on about relaxation, because it costs him nothing, and looks good on TV. The reality is FF would no more adapt relaxation than FG.

Corrent, actually none of the parties seem to be in favour of it. I don't think it was in any party's pre election manifesto and apart from Willie (who has zero credibility IMO) I haven't heard many politicians talking about it either.

An Coilean

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Which Willie was it.... he looks like somebody from a pantomime. He was just on about relaxation, because it costs him nothing, and looks good on TV. The reality is FF would no more adapt relaxation than FG.

Well actually FF have been making noises about relaxing the whip system interally and allowing more votes of conscience etc. Very much making a virtue out of necessity after the abortion bill but it has happened and may happen more often in the future.

At the end of the day, it doesnt really make sence for them to have to go to the hassle of throwing someone out of the party if they cant support the Government on every little minor issue as long as they can toe the line on the important issues like the budget and votes of confidence etc. They have a more sofisticated system in other countries and it works well enough, it makes sense that there would be a desire to change the whip system to some degree to make unnecessary the kind of wrangeling needed to keep everyone on board on every issue and prevent a governments majority being erroded from people going overboard.

The current government can afford to be strict on the whip and loose members now and again due to the fact that they have such a larg majority, but that won't always be the case.

PRAF

An Coilean wrote: »

Well actually FF have been making noises about relaxing the whip system interally and allowing more votes of conscience etc. Very much making a virtue out of necessity after the abortion bill but it has happened and may happen more often in the future.

At the end of the day, it doesnt really make sence for them to have to go to the hassle of throwing someone out of the party if they cant support the Government on every little minor issue as long as they can toe the line on the important issues like the budget and votes of confidence etc. They have a more sofisticated system in other countries and it works well enough, it makes sense that there would be a desire to change the whip system to some degree to make unnecessary the kind of wrangeling needed to keep everyone on board on every issue and prevent a governments majority being erroded from people going overboard.

The current government can afford to be strict on the whip and loose members now and again due to the fact that they have such a larg majority, but that won't always be the case.

I always wondered why political parties seem to feel the urge to have formal party policy on almost every conceivable economic / political / social / environmental issue. They'd be better off concentrating on core values and allowing free votes on non core values.

An Coilean

PRAF wrote: »

I always wondered why political parties seem to feel the urge to have formal party policy on almost every conceivable economic / political / social / environmental issue. They'd be better off concentrating on core values and allowing free votes on non core values.

Well I would say there are two reasons, one is to get votes from people who are interested in that area, you will have people comming up to you to ask about what your party will do for x issue, and it doesnt really go down well if they have nothing to say.

Secondly for many issues there will be a few people in the party with an interest in the issue who will put a policy proposal together and push for it to be addopted as party policy, sometimes its not adopted, but more often than not it is.

Harry Angstrom

MP's in the UK often vote against their whip. They don't get suspended from their party and the sky doesn't fall in. The whip system here stifles any sort of reasonable debate, and the hypocrisy of it is disgusting. For instance, Denis Naughten lost the Fine Gael whip after he understandably could not support the government's decision to close Roscommon Hospital A&E. Enda Kenny and James Reilly had given assurances to the people of Roscommon prior to the general election that they would not close it.

Zubeneschamali

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Denis Naughten lost the Fine Gael whip after he understandably could not support the government's decision to close Roscommon Hospital A&E.

He fixed the parish pump!

Harry Angstrom

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He fixed the parish pump!

That's not very fair. Kenny and Reilly effectively lied to the people of Roscommon. Naughten was elected in good faith.

Zubeneschamali

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Kenny and Reilly effectively lied to the people of Roscommon. Naughten was elected in good faith.

Yes, and then Kenny and O'Reilly did the right thing, and Naughten did something stupid.

tayto lover

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and then Kenny and O'Reilly did the right thing, and Naughten did something stupid.

He showed far more honour than the other two.

Zubeneschamali

tayto lover wrote: »

He showed far more honour than the other two.

Good one!

tayto lover

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Good one!

Yes he obviously is not a bare-faced liar.:rolleyes:

Harry Angstrom

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and then Kenny and O'Reilly did the right thing, and Naughten did something stupid.

It's "Reilly" actually.

Zubeneschamali

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes he obviously is not a bare-faced liar.:rolleyes:

He obviously thought defying the party whip would earn him more votes than following it, after the party got him a seat.

Let's see how that works out the election after next.

Zubeneschamali

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

It's "Reilly" actually.

I beg the Minister's pardon.

creedp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and then Kenny and O'Reilly did the right thing, and Naughten did something stupid.

This is why Irish politics will never change .. FG make promises to get into Govt. They break one of the promises once they get in and it is the Govt TD that benefited from the promise who is stupid because he didn't go along with the broken promise.

While we all know that this how the charade of Irish democratically elected Govts operate, but how can one complain about Irish politics and simultaneously hold this view? The other side of theargument is that people want the elitist Seanad to be democratically elected so that they will better represent the people? Just like the Dail I presume?

Zubeneschamali

creedp wrote: »

how can one complain about Irish politics and simultaneously hold this view?

Simple: I complain about Irish politics, but politicians breaking stupid promises is not one of my complaints. Politicians making stupid promises is.

micosoft

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

MP's in the UK often vote against their whip. They don't get suspended from their party and the sky doesn't fall in. The whip system here stifles any sort of reasonable debate, and the hypocrisy of it is disgusting. For instance, Denis Naughten lost the Fine Gael whip after he understandably could not support the government's decision to close Roscommon Hospital A&E. Enda Kenny and James Reilly had given assurances to the people of Roscommon prior to the general election that they would not close it.

And this is a superb example of why a Whip system is necessary. Without getting into the specifics of closing or not closing, a policy decision was made by the HSE to shut it down which was based on a rational reconfiguration of services. Local interests who typically never support change demanded it stay open. Denis put his electoral prospects ahead of a Government decision and lost the whip. This was no act of principle - it was cowardice.
As an aside I live near Loughlinstown A&E and have supported it's closure despite the usual crew coming out to "save it". The reality is that medical care is vastly different to 30 years ago and we have a motorway network. Change is necessary.

creedp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Simple: I complain about Irish politics, but politicians breaking stupid promises is not one of my complaints. Politicians making stupid promises is.

I wasn't referring specfically to you. I was was trying to make the point that there seems to be no means to improve on what is currently a very broken political system in this country.

Its laughable then when you hear people being critisized for not going out to vote or sploiling their ballot paper .. people died so you could have the vote!! It is no surprise the high level of voter apathy in this country or the cynism that peole have toward politics in general. I think we are at a point that unless there is a new political party established in this country it is difficult to understand why we have elections at all other than to give new faces a change to get in on the act.

creedp

micosoft wrote: »

And this is a superb example of why a Whip system is necessary. Without getting into the specifics of closing or not closing, a policy decision was made by the HSE to shut it down which was based on a rational reconfiguration of services. Local interests who typically never support change demanded it stay open. Denis put his electoral prospects ahead of a Government decision and lost the whip. This was no act of principle - it was cowardice.
As an aside I live near Loughlinstown A&E and have supported it's closure despite the usual crew coming out to "save it". The reality is that medical care is vastly different to 30 years ago and we have a motorway network. Change is necessary.

No difficulty with this view .. the problem is with the irrational and undeliverable promises made during an election which can be ignored after election day seemingly without any sanction. Sure what did you expect .. politicians keep promises?

Javan

A slightly different take on the debate about the whip (I think):

I read the article in TheJournal where Enda Kenny explains that 'One cannot have instability'. To my mind what he is saying can be paraphrased as:
I think Fine Gael TDs are so stupid and / or selfish that they would bring down the government rather than do right by the country.

That is a shocking indictment of his own party colleagues. If that is true then I want to know about it. I want to know who those TDs are so we can give them the boot. Right now I cannot know who those TDs are, and as a result we have a parliament stuffed to the gills with the most self-serving, lazy and parochial idiots in the country.

micosoft

Javan wrote: »

A slightly different take on the debate about the whip (I think):

I read the article in TheJournal where Enda Kenny explains that 'One cannot have instability'. To my mind what he is saying can be paraphrased as:
I think Fine Gael TDs are so stupid and / or selfish that they would bring down the government rather than do right by the country.

That is a shocking indictment of his own party colleagues. If that is true then I want to know about it. I want to know who those TDs are so we can give them the boot. Right now I cannot know who those TDs are, and as a result we have a parliament stuffed to the gills with the most self-serving, lazy and parochial idiots in the country.

Have you not seen the News recently? How a group of unwhipped US representatives might actually take down the World Economy for partisan interest?
The answer is not just FG - all Politicians do this when they can get away with it. Imagine a Dail full of Mick and Mings.... The whip is a necessary check in our system of democracy.

micosoft

creedp wrote: »

No difficulty with this view .. the problem is with the irrational and undeliverable promises made during an election which can be ignored after election day seemingly without any sanction. Sure what did you expect .. politicians keep promises?

But what I am saying is that a rational voter should look at an irrational and undeliverable promise and choose not to vote for this candidate in the first place. It's too late after and you have to wait 5 years

You are expecting the cart to go before the horse if you think the politician is going to offer realistic promises first and promptly not get voted in while Micky Liar gets his seat. The buck stops with the electorate. We have to learn there are consequences to believing bull**** promises.

As an adjunct to this. Just because an electorate votes for a policy does not mean they get it. Some people seem to be of the opinion that the electorate can vote away the recession because that's like, democracy man. It worries me that this mindset of the infallible voter is accepted in Ireland when all the evidence is that typically the Irish electorate make poor choices. Learn for a year or two. Then repeat.

hmmm

The whip gives cover to politicians who need to make difficult decisions. We already have enough parish pump gombeens in the Dail without encouraging more.

Do we need the whip on every vote? No of course not. I see it as a sign that our political leaders lack confidence, or perhaps there's some tribal thing going where they expect all their TDs to genuflect to them.

Burke was a big fan of political parties, as without them he felt it would be impossible to get legislation enacted. I don't always agree with him, but I do on this.

creedp

micosoft wrote: »

But what I am saying is that a rational voter should look at an irrational and undeliverable promise and choose not to vote for this candidate in the first place. It's too late after and you have to wait 5 years.

Agree but voting for irrational and undeliverable promises is deeply ingrained in the Irish electorate psyche. Can you seriously see a politician/party that promises increased income taxes and reduced social welfare payments actually getting elected in Ireland any time soon? This is democracy in action though which is obviously far superior to the elitist unelected Seanad.

Given that democracy produces flawed outcomes its all the more important that the Seanad be reformed to make it more representative and better able to protect the electorate from themselves.

An Coilean

creedp wrote: »

Agree but voting for irrational and undeliverable promises is deeply ingrained in the Irish electorate psyche. Can you seriously see a politician/party that promises increased income taxes and reduced social welfare payments actually getting elected in Ireland any time soon? This is democracy in action though which is obviously far superior to the elitist unelected Seanad.

Given that democracy produces flawed outcomes its all the more important that the Seanad be reformed to make it more representative and better able to protect the electorate from themselves.

The current Government were promising increased taxes and cuts to public services in the election campaign and they got a record majority.

So i'd say your a bit wrong there.

creedp

An Coilean wrote: »

The current Government were promising increased taxes and cuts to public services in the election campaign and they got a record majority.

So i'd say your a bit wrong there.

The promise that resonates most with people is the FG promise "we will not increase income taxes". Also there is a diconnect between cuts in public services which many associate with public sector pay (which is universally praised as positive) and cuts and in social welfare.