What Sort Of Political Reform Would You Be In Favour Of ?

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

The answer to that is here:

That's not an answer, it's a recipe for disaster. The Dail would grind to a halt with the inability to make even simple decisions. Bills would take an age to pass. While increased sitting time is a good idea to allow bills to be debated properly, 166 disparate voices in the chamber would be a disaster and not solve the issue of them all being recalled for breaking promises.

How would it create a solution to Pats promise of no cuts and Richards promise of no tax increases? There is no compromise that would keep both promises intact, the only action would be inaction thus damaging the economy.

Now maybe under such a system politicians wouldn't make such promises, but what would election campaigns look like then? A plethora of very vague ideas and possibilities

Noreen1

Simple.

Pat and Richard would both have to accept majority rule - just like the rest of us accept the majority result in elections.

The difference would be that every TD would feel obliged to act on the mandate he was given by his electorate, rather than promising the sun, moon, and stars, then accepting whatever the Cabinet decided.

Result: More representative Democracy.

SocSocPol

Noreen1 wrote: »

Simple.

Pat and Richard would both have to accept majority rule - just like the rest of us accept the majority result in elections.

The difference would be that every TD would feel obliged to act on the mandate he was given by his electorate, rather than promising the sun, moon, and stars, then accepting whatever the Cabinet decided.

Result: More representative Democracy.

What would result is Government by perpetual referendum a recipe for complete disaster.
We already have a recall system, its called a general election.

Dannyboy83

SocSocPol wrote: »

We already have a recall system, its called a general election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election
A recall election (also called a recall referendum or representative recall) is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before his or her term has ended

Noreen1

@ SocSocPaul

What makes you think that?

Dannyboy83

Idea for reform:

Take back control of decision making from the unions. That is all.

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

Simple.

Pat and Richard would both have to accept majority rule - just like the rest of us accept the majority result in elections.

The difference would be that every TD would feel obliged to act on the mandate he was given by his electorate, rather than promising the sun, moon, and stars, then accepting whatever the Cabinet decided.

Result: More representative Democracy.

In my example Pat represents Labour and Richard FG. They are the majority, they've formed a government but had different mandates. Coalition governments wouldn't exist under your proposal, because both mandates would be compromised. It is up the party members/grassroots to decide whether a compromise is compromising too much of that parties values and policies and up to the electorate to decide so too at next election based on the compromises, u turns, failures and successes of that candidate /party. People need to base votes on performance at national level.

Recall should exist, i agree, but for a far more circumscribed set of circumstances. There should be a mechanism for removing a TD from the Dail (Mick Wallace is a recent case where we had TDs saying it was up to the people of Wexford to decide that at next election - too late)

Noreen1

Laminations wrote: »

In my example Pat represents Labour and Richard FG. They are the majority, they've formed a government but had different mandates. Coalition governments wouldn't exist under your proposal, because both mandates would be compromised. It is up the party members/grassroots to decide whether a compromise is compromising too much of that parties values and policies and up to the electorate to decide so too at next election based on the compromises, u turns, failures and successes of that candidate /party. People need to base votes on performance at national level.

Recall should exist, i agree, but for a far more circumscribed set of circumstances. There should be a mechanism for removing a TD from the Dail (Mick Wallace is a recent case where we had TDs saying it was up to the people of Wexford to decide that at next election - too late)

There would obviously have to be limitations to the recall.
However, to limit it to, er, legislative, or financial "irregularities" would severely curtail it's effectiveness.

The truth is, that in Countries that use a system of recall, it is rarely successfully used.

For example, could we have used a system of recall against Bertie? or CJ?
The electorate may not believe their stories - but they have never been found guilty in a court of law (unfortunately, imo.)

I'm aware that a recall system has the potential to be abused - but I am also aware that the current system is being abused.

We, the people, need to be able to hold our Politicians to account - and without a recall system, I don't see how we can achieve that.
I'm not saying that TDs should be able to be recalled on a whim - but the issue of trust needs to be addressed.
Limiting the power of recall to legislative issues, where the politicians concerned have the power to change legislation - is useless, imo.

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

There would obviously have to be limitations to the recall.
However, to limit it to, er, legislative, or financial "irregularities" would severely curtail it's effectiveness.

The truth is, that in Countries that use a system of recall, it is rarely successfully used.

For example, could we have used a system of recall against Bertie? or CJ?
The electorate may not believe their stories - but they have never been found guilty in a court of law (unfortunately, imo.)

I'm aware that a recall system has the potential to be abused - but I am also aware that the current system is being abused.

We, the people, need to be able to hold our Politicians to account - and without a recall system, I don't see how we can achieve that.
I'm not saying that TDs should be able to be recalled on a whim - but the issue of trust needs to be addressed.
Limiting the power of recall to legislative issues, where the politicians concerned have the power to change legislation - is useless, imo.

Well then no I don't agree with recall. I was wrong for suggesting it should be used to uphold standards. Instead we should just have better standards watchdogs and proper prosecutions and court cases for political wrongdoing rather than tribunals. I was suggesting recall as a filler in an area where the law should really be tough enough to deal with.

As for holding them to account on performance, we get to do that at election. It's an issue of maturity (not lack of recall) that we haven't really done that as a nation so far (we still engage in him been parish pump politics). Separating local and national governance would help us see our politicians as national legislators rather than the fella who opened the new gym in the local school.

Noreen1

Laminations wrote: »

Well then no I don't agree with recall. I was wrong for suggesting it should be used to uphold standards. Instead we should just have better standards watchdogs and proper prosecutions and court cases for political wrongdoing rather than tribunals. I was suggesting recall as a filler in an area where the law should really be tough enough to deal with.

As for holding them to account on performance, we get to do that at election. It's an issue of maturity (not lack of recall) that we haven't really done that as a nation so far (we still engage in him been parish pump politics). Separating local and national governance would help us see our politicians as national legislators rather than the fella who opened the new gym in the local school.

We will never achieve "proper" prosecutions, or standards watchdogs while the Government has a role in either choosing the watchdogs, or electing the Judiciary.
If you were a leading Barrister, looking for promotion, would you prosecute a TD?
You might - but most turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

View

Noreen1 wrote: »

I favour a system where all TDs have equal voting rights, and where their votes on any issue are made public.
That should ensure greater accountability, and a more representative democracy.

All TDs do have equal voting rights and their votes are made public (i.e. they do not cast secret ballots in the Dail).

It doesn't ensure greater accountability - in fact, I'd say many of electorate have little interest in any accountability as the "dodgier" a politician's record, the more popular they tend to be...

Lastly, I think you mis-use the phrase "representative democracy". It is perhaps best elaborated upon by Edmund Burke in (part of) his speech here (the background to which was an election campaign in which Burke was accused of putting the interests of Ireland before that of his Bristol constituents).

Mr.Micro

Noreen1 wrote: »

We will never achieve "proper" prosecutions, or standards watchdogs while the Government has a role in either choosing the watchdogs, or electing the Judiciary.
If you were a leading Barrister, looking for promotion, would you prosecute a TD?
You might - but most turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Yes indeed. People appointed to various Boards or other institutions by the Taoiseach or whoever. These same people often with little or no aptitude for the job other than a political affinity to the party that appointed him/her. Its all rotten and true accountability will never be achieved. FG/Labour will continue in the vein of the previous lot, because it suits them not to rock the boat while in office.

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

We will never achieve "proper" prosecutions, or standards watchdogs while the Government has a role in either choosing the watchdogs, or electing the Judiciary.
If you were a leading Barrister, looking for promotion, would you prosecute a TD?
You might - but most turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Recall wont fix this. But yep, reform in this area I'd agree with.

Sierra Oscar

matthew8 wrote: »

More power to the local councils, we don't need our TDs painting yellow boxes and filling potholes. And repeal gender quotas.

Yeah, if councillors actually had the power to deal with local matters effectively then constituents may not have to be so reliant on TD's to get local matters sorted. I really think that local government needs a radical overhaul. The power needs to shift somewhat from the council managers back to elected representatives. I also think that we could perhaps look at amalgamating councils and have them based more on larger regions to have more integrated and joined up planning alongside cutting down on wastage through the sharing of resources.

celtictiger32

GarIT wrote: »

All ministers should have a minimum of a masters degree in the relevant area so we don't end up with someone completely unqualified running a certain area. Like in previous years a lawyer running the economy and teachers running the dept of health. Keep people in the area they know and things might work better.

in fairness when you look at some of the qualifications that our td's have and they still cant get things right where the average joe can come up with a better solution, so i dont agree with this suggestion

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Stop the pensions ex TDs receive. It is crazy to think how many corrupt TDs are receiving enormous pensions and are still working day jobs or have incomes on the side. A pension should only be paid at retirement age.

If a TD is found corrupt they lose their pension and all their family are banned from Politics in Ireland.

nobody to run the country so;)

i know its been mentioned before but what would the pros and cons be for a sort of federality where we have four different (provincial) governing bodies answerable to a centralised parliament. wouldnt that seperate national and local issues for a start?

Mr.Micro

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Yeah, if councillors actually had the power to deal with local matters effectively then constituents may not have to be so reliant on TD's to get local matters sorted. I really think that local government needs a radical overhaul. The power needs to shift somewhat from the council managers back to elected representatives. I also think that we could perhaps look at amalgamating councils and have them based more on larger regions to have more integrated and joined up planning alongside cutting down on wastage through the sharing of resources.

I agree in principle with your post and especially that local government needs a radical overhaul. The roles of the Councillors and the employed professional staff needs to be clearly defined and not the cosy relationship that exists in many areas where the lines have become blurred. An example in kind is the recent planning issues that have plagued the country where Councillors bullied and overturned proper planning laws in favour of themselves and developers. Then there is the issue of the supreme power...the unelected, unaccountable County manager who has all the power. Reform cannot come soon enough.

Pedant

As a libertarian ... *cough* *cough* ... I would take out my sword and slash taxes and decapitate social welfare.

Mu ha ha ha ha!!