Fine Gael's Attack on Democracy

unclejunior

What does Fine Gael hope to achieve by reducing the TDs in the Dail along with their stupid new policy on gender quotas? Would they like to eradicate all opposition parties altogether because this has the effect of damaging smaller parties and independents. Since he doesnt have the backbone to go live on air and debate with Gerry Adams, because he doesn't 'do' Vincent Browne, I would like to know what Brenda Kennys intentions are because I'm quite puzzeled at these fruitless 'reforms'.

itzme

unclejunior wrote: »

What does Fine Gael hope to achieve by reducing the TDs in the Dail along with their stupid new policy on gender quotas? Would they like to eradicate all opposition parties altogether because this has the effect of damaging smaller parties and independents. Since he doesnt have the backbone to go live on air and debate with Gerry Adams, because he doesn't 'do' Vincent Browne, I would like to know what Brenda Kennys intentions are because I'm quite puzzeled at these fruitless 'reforms'.

When will the attacks on democracy end, where do they get off trying to implement a policy that they campaigned for in the election. Me I'm sick of these teacher politicians doing what they said they would! Rabble Rabble

Take a look at page 7 and 63

Fr Tod Umptious

unclejunior wrote: »

What does Fine Gael hope to achieve by reducing the TDs in the Dail along with their stupid new policy on gender quotas? Would they like to eradicate all opposition parties altogether because this has the effect of damaging smaller parties and independents. Since he doesnt have the backbone to go live on air and debate with Gerry Adams, because he doesn't 'do' Vincent Browne, I would like to know what Brenda Kennys intentions are because I'm quite puzzeled at these fruitless 'reforms'.

Spot on OP

Down with this sort of thing

We are the 99%

Give us back our democracy

touts

Well in Tipperary it is likely they will lose a seat. As it stands they have two of the lowest profile backbenchers in the dail (Tom "Ammm" Hayes and Noel "Who" Coonan). In contrast the other sitting TDs are Junior Minister Alan "Railway to Nenagh" Kelly, Michael "Casino" Lowry, Mattie "Look at me look at me" McGrath and Seamus "Workers and unemployed of the world unite!" Healy. If Fine Gael's vote declines in the next election they will be the ones to lose a seat.

VinLieger

Well the reduction in TD's makes sense as it applies directly to the census figures and according to our constitution there is a specific ratio of TD's to population. They are simply applying that part of the constitution and obeying the law. I dont understand why anyone would have a problem with it? Unless of course you are loosing a representative, but in that case all i can suggest is to get everyone you know to start making babies so you can get your seat back :P

Now the 30% female nomination thing is a bit iffy, but as i understand it right now it is only they must nominate 30%. If it becomes a case of there must be 30% elected, which has been voiced as a possiblity, then yes that is an attack on democracy as people will either be forced to vote for people they dont want too or their votes will simply be discounted so as to achieve the right percentage of female TD's

View

itzme wrote: »

When will the attacks on democracy end, where do they get off trying to implement a policy that they campaigned for in the election. Me I'm sick of these teacher politicians doing what they said they would! Rabble Rabble

Take a look at page 7 and 63

D£&n them for not lying to us and doing what they promised.

mikemac1

Population of Tipp is larger then Carlow-Kilkenny but I don't see Phil Hogan making any cuts to his five seater

Plus Tipp North now includes parts of South Offaly so it's larger again



But Tipp gets merged and the Minister keeps his five seater

I don't have the constitution open but afaik it's 20,000 to 30,000 for a TD
All of Tipperary and South Offaly has this, enough for six TDs

RichardAnd

Well I can't say too much about reducing the number of TD's but I can state that gender quota's are unfair to men and insulting to women. Why anything should have any type of advantage due to gender bewilders me.

However, as regards an attack on democracy, let's consider two policies of FG. Firstly, we have the issue of a certain referendum to allow the government to reduce the pay of judges. This was passed because when taken at face value, it seemed simply to allow some savings to be made whilst appeasing a sizeable number of people. The same could be said for the abolition of the Senate, surely that's just a way to save a few quid and shure we all know them politicians get too much money . . . right?

Well the answer is, perhaps. Both the action on judges' payment and the intention of abolishing the Senate would save money, not very much in the grand scheme of things but it would save something. However, consider the following:

Firstly, the constitutional article on judges' pay was put in place to limit the power that the state can have on the legal system. Without the means to hit judges in the pocket, it is less likely (though no impossible) that an unscrupulous government could gain undue influence on what should be a totally independent entity; the law.

The Senate exists as a means of rubber-stamping the laws that come from the lower house, the Dail. Granted, no ill relations that I know of has ever come to pass between the two but the fact that the Senate exists means that the mechanism of a second say on the laws of the dail is possible within the remit of the constitution.

Now then, if a referendum to abolish the Senate is ever passed (and I have no doubt that it would pass) then the Irish electorate will have signed away on two constitutional limits on the powers of the Dail. The Senate would no longer exist to challenge any law from the dail and it would be possible that a challenge through the courts would be impossible due to a venal collection of judges. In essence, all laws could come into effect simply by passing through the Dail.

Shea O'Meara

You cannot force gender equality. Are we to give preference to somebody based on sex rather than merit? Nonsense. Will each party be obliged to nominate at least 7% Tranny? Is the whole idea PC in full rotation, by that I mean it's become sexist, favouring women over men?
No straight up go getter would want to get in on a technicality anyway, male or female...mind you we are talking politicians I suppose.

Politics is pretty much a popularity contest, which can't be helped, but bringing in the 'X' amount of women because we have to really won't help against the nepotism the system is already rife with.

By the way, when is the Senate closing it's doors?

the groutch

VinLieger wrote: »

Now the 30% female nomination thing is a bit iffy, but as i understand it right now it is only they must nominate 30%. If it becomes a case of there must be 30% elected, which has been voiced as a possiblity, then yes that is an attack on democracy as people will either be forced to vote for people they dont want too or their votes will simply be discounted so as to achieve the right percentage of female TD's

even a 30% nomination requirement is undemocratic imo, as there will be a significant number of potential male candidates, who even if they are more suitably qualified to be a TD, will be denied the support of their party, and if they want to run in the election have to be at a major disadvantage by running as an independent, ie. without the party's name recognition or funding

Scofflaw

RichardAnd wrote: »

Well I can't say too much about reducing the number of TD's but I can state that gender quota's are unfair to men and insulting to women. Why anything should have any type of advantage due to gender bewilders me.

I don't like quotas, personally, but let's assume for a moment that there is some unknown bar to a 50:50 gender balance in the Dáil - I say unknown because unless you're willing to go down the line of "men are better suited to politics than women" then we'd be speculating over why it might be that women are not elected in equal numbers to the Dáil. It might be that the working arrangements don't suit women as well, it might be that the public isn't as comfortable with female candidates, it might be that the parties prefer male candidates because they're mostly men themselves.

Anyway, if we institute gender quotas, then the likelihood is that we will find out, and perhaps even eradicate, whatever advantage men currently enjoy over women in getting elected to the Dáil.

I would be concerned only if I felt that the quotas would result in poorer quality candidates - but I don't see that as necessarily the case (and, cynically, I sometimes don;t see it as even possible).

RichardAnd wrote: »

However, as regards an attack on democracy, let's consider two policies of FG. Firstly, we have the issue of a certain referendum to allow the government to reduce the pay of judges. This was passed because when taken at face value, it seemed simply to allow some savings to be made whilst appeasing a sizeable number of people. The same could be said for the abolition of the Senate, surely that's just a way to save a few quid and shure we all know them politicians get too much money . . . right?

Well the answer is, perhaps. Both the action on judges' payment and the intention of abolishing the Senate would save money, not very much in the grand scheme of things but it would save something. However, consider the following:

Firstly, the constitutional article on judges' pay was put in place to limit the power that the state can have on the legal system. Without the means to hit judges in the pocket, it is less likely (though no impossible) that an unscrupulous government could gain undue influence on what should be a totally independent entity; the law.

The Senate exists as a means of rubber-stamping the laws that come from the lower house, the Dail. Granted, no ill relations that I know of has ever come to pass between the two but the fact that the Senate exists means that the mechanism of a second say on the laws of the dail is possible within the remit of the constitution.

Now then, if a referendum to abolish the Senate is ever passed (and I have no doubt that it would pass) then the Irish electorate will have signed away on two constitutional limits on the powers of the Dail. The Senate would no longer exist to challenge any law from the dail and it would be possible that a challenge through the courts would be impossible due to a venal collection of judges. In essence, all laws could come into effect simply by passing through the Dail.

Yup.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

the groutch wrote: »

even a 30% nomination requirement is undemocratic imo, as there will be a significant number of potential male candidates, who even if they are more suitably qualified to be a TD, will be denied the support of their party, and if they want to run in the election have to be at a major disadvantage by running as an independent, ie. without the party's name recognition or funding

The selection of candidates is not, in itself, a democratic process. Indeed, it's an entirely opaque and closed shop process that involves a welter of political and tribal loyalties, popularity contests, party loyalty, past misdeeds and favours, and probably sexism, racism, and religious bigotry in smoke filled rooms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Milk & Honey

mikemac1 wrote: »

Population of Tipp is larger then Carlow-Kilkenny but I don't see Phil Hogan making any cuts to his five seater

Plus Tipp North now includes parts of South Offaly so it's larger again



But Tipp gets merged and the Minister keeps his five seater

I don't have the constitution open but afaik it's 20,000 to 30,000 for a TD
All of Tipperary and South Offaly has this, enough for six TDs

South Offaly will be returned to Laois Offaly if Tipp become a 5 seater. An extra seat is being added in Offaly. What is happening is that the average number of voters per constituency is being moved upwards towards the maximum permitted. This means fewer seats overall. A number of counties had been divided into two three seaters and these will be merged to produce 5 seaters in place of the three seaters. Some adjustment with neighbouring areas will be carried out to maintain the average numbers. mathematically it is easier for an independent to secure a seat in a 5 seater but in rural areas the tendency to vote local is very strong making it difficult, for an independent to get votes from outside his main base whereas party votes will follow the candidates around the constituency.

Fenian Army

Gender quotas are a fantastic idea, and have a proven track record of increasing female participation in politics, something which is sorely lacking in Ireland. As an aside I also believe that there should be gender quotas for company boards. But on Gender quotas;

Only 91 women have been elected to Dáil Eireann since 1918. Only 5.48% of Dáil seats have been occupied by women. There has been some improvement in this area in recent times. In the 2011 general election 25 women (15%) were elected. This lags far behind the EU average (24%). Gender quotas are necessary to rectify this chronic under representation.

Gender quotas have been successfully used in other countries to encourage female participation in politics.

There are three types of gender quotas:
Constitutional quotas are enshrined in the country's constitution, while legislative quotas are enshrined in the election law, political party law or other comparable law of a country.

The Nordic countries, Sweden and Norway in particular have a long history of using voluntary party quotas and they consistently rank highly when compared to other countries with regards to their levels of female political representation.
Other countries have successfully used legislative quotas. Argentina and Spain, (Argentina of course has a female President) have gender quotas enshrined in legislation and the average rather of female political representation in these countries is 38%

Recently the government have published a bill which would ensure that 30% (this will rise to 40% in seven years) of candidates will be female – failure to comply with this would result in party funding being cut in half.
This, while welcome, has some obstacles to overcome before it will have the desired outcome. Parties may simply run women in unwinnable elections – simply to make up numbers, complying with the letter of the law but not the spirit of it.
Another problem is that parties with sufficient financial clout may simply decide not to comply with the law and take the financial hit. For example in France, after gender quotas were implemented in 2000 parties both took the financial hit and ran women in unwinnable elections to make up numbers.

bijapos

Reducing the number of TD's by 8 is not undemocratic OP. If so i could argue that having anything less than 1,000 TD's is undemocratic.

As mentioned earlier the number of TD's is regulated by the constitution and other statutes such as the Electoral act of 1997. Going on that basis and the population of 4,588,000 at the 2011 census we could actually have a minimum of 153 and a max of 229.

Personally I believe the constitution should be changed to leave us with 90-110 TD's, IMO half of these should be elected on a national list system leaving some diversity of opinion represented in the Dail. The other half (45-55 seats) should be divided into no more than 8 constituencies nationwide.

Personally the elephant in the room for me is the number of seats in a constituency. the present system of 3,4 and 5 seaters leaves power disproportionally in the hands of a small number of parties. This is deliberate as years ago we had constituencies with far more TD's. It is dleiberately done by the leading parties to maintain disproportionate control in the Dail, leaving us with the situation that just over 40% of the vote will probably give you an overall majority.

having 8 constituencies would IMO get rid of a certain amount of the parish pump nonsense that dominates so much of a TD's time and would leave them more time to do what they are supposed to do which is run the country (not their constituencies).

mikemac1

National list system is constantly in this forum as a solution

You say it reduces the parish pump element

But what do I even know about these candidates when I go vote
Do I vote for party hack number 27 or party loyalist number 35?

The only reason they got on the list is because they are favoured by leadership.
And they won't be there if they are considered a threat or if they constantly speak out

There's no perfect system but I don't see a national list as an improvement.

bijapos

mikemac1 wrote: »

National list system is constantly in this forum as a solution

You say it reduces the parish pump element

No, I said that reducing the amount of TDs as well as increasing the sizes of constituencies will help to get rid of it. It's not a golden bullet by any means.

A list system ensures that people nationally of the same political persuaion will be more equally represented.

But what do I even know about these candidates when I go vote
Do I vote for party hack number 27 or party loyalist number 35?

About as much or as little as you presently know when you vote 1,2,3...etc today.

The only reason they got on the list is because they are favoured by leadership.
And they won't be there if they are considered a threat or if they constantly speak out

No real change there then, as Scofflaw said the selection of candidates by parties is a filthy game anyway.

There's no perfect system but I don't see a national list as an improvement.

I see it as more representative than the present system which can't be a bad thing. You should note that I proposed 50% of TD's be voted on a list system.

goose2005

It seems odd that FG and Lab are insistent that this be law for all parties - why don't they just make it an internal rule of their own parties?

Monty Burnz

unclejunior wrote: »

What does Fine Gael hope to achieve by reducing the TDs in the Dail along with their stupid new policy on gender quotas? Would they like to eradicate all opposition parties altogether because this has the effect of damaging smaller parties and independents

If they had any balls they would halve the number of TDs and have half of those elected by a list system. We need to end the parish-pump politics that you seem to be supporting.

Monty Burnz

goose2005 wrote: »

It seems odd that FG and Lab are insistent that this be law for all parties - why don't they just make it an internal rule of their own parties?

Presumably because it puts the party implementing it at a disadvantage in the short-term at least, and if it's not compulsory then nobody will be willing to do it.

Fenian Army

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Presumably because it puts the party implementing it at a disadvantage in the short-term at least, and if it's not compulsory then nobody will be willing to do it.

How does it?

Monty Burnz

Fenian Army wrote: »

How does it?

Because you may find yourself having to leave out an experienced/popular male candidate for an inexperienced/unknown female candidate.

Lantus

Relating the number of TD's to the strength of our democracy is wrong.

In fact we could easily dispense with 60+ TD's and not suffer any loss of democracy. (we would save an awful lot of money though.)

Decisions made in the dail and laws passed are party driven and parties are controlled by a small number of people in reality as they are heirarchal in much the same way as a large corporation.

We would be much better off having a smaller number of TD's that focus on central issues and then Locally elected TD's that run local government in lieu of councillers which we should dispense with.

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

The selection of candidates is not, in itself, a democratic process. Indeed, it's an entirely opaque and closed shop process that involves a welter of political and tribal loyalties, popularity contests, party loyalty, past misdeeds and favours, and probably sexism, racism, and religious bigotry in smoke filled rooms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would have said that such a system is highly democratic.

Nobody every said that the democratic system should be neat and tidy, did they?

rodento

Wonder how people feel about replacing hundreds of locally elected town councillors with possibly partisan local/area committees

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bill-to-slash-town-councils-and-halve-number-of-councillors-1.1563518