I have a Mandate from the people

karkhanas

When you join a political party, you do so in the understanding that you will be subject to the whip system. If you have an issue with that then perhaps you should not join a party?

Personally I am against the whip system but that is how political parties choose to operate and party members choose to abide by this system.

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let's be honest, how often does that really happen, when the punishment for it is to lose most of your dail rights? It only ever happens on the most extreme issues imaginable, not on the everyday legislation which is where we need the people to have more clout over their politicians.

Well that's the thing isn't it, and sorry for missing your post. You have to divide politicians into pragmatists and idealists (I'm being very generous and calling parish pump politicians idealists). You need both but they behave rather differently in this regard. For pragmatists you put up with crap so you can push through some of what you want. There is usually a line you won't cross but it's normally pretty far away. An idealist tends to want to neither compromise on policy nor indulge in horse trading over policy. The line for them is quite close.

Now whips and coalitions tend to bring in pragmatists, no whips and individual voting tends to bring in idealists. If you bring in the latter, which gives what you want in terms of accountability, you will bring in a hell of a lot more pork barrel politics. It's very important to remember here that there are downsides which ever way you go and greater public control over TDs very much has problems.

hatrickpatrick

nesf wrote: »

Well that's the thing isn't it, and sorry for missing your post. You have to divide politicians into pragmatists and idealists (I'm being very generous and calling parish pump politicians idealists). You need both but they behave rather differently in this regard. For pragmatists you put up with crap so you can push through some of what you want. There is usually a line you won't cross but it's normally pretty far away. An idealist tends to want to neither compromise on policy nor indulge in horse trading over policy. The line for them is quite close.

Now whips and coalitions tend to bring in pragmatists, no whips and individual voting tends to bring in idealists. If you bring in the latter, which gives what you want in terms of accountability, you will bring in a hell of a lot more pork barrel politics. It's very important to remember here that there are downsides which ever way you go and greater public control over TDs very much has problems.

My solution to this would be to decentralize all local matters to local government, leading the Dail to only vote on nationwide legislation. That way there could be no parish pump in the Dail as the Dail would have no power over local matters in the first place, and one could then have the accountability I'm proposing without worrying about it encouraging a Dail full of Healy Raes.

Mr.Micro

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My solution to this would be to decentralize all local matters to local government, leading the Dail to only vote on nationwide legislation. That way there could be no parish pump in the Dail as the Dail would have no power over local matters in the first place, and one could then have the accountability I'm proposing without worrying about it encouraging a Dail full of Healy Raes.

So long as the local authorities are reformed and cross party corruption is not tolerated. When it comes to planning issues the local authorities are as good as anyone else in putting greed before what is right. What about the unelected County Manager with all that power?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My solution to this would be to decentralize all local matters to local government, leading the Dail to only vote on nationwide legislation. That way there could be no parish pump in the Dail as the Dail would have no power over local matters in the first place, and one could then have the accountability I'm proposing without worrying about it encouraging a Dail full of Healy Raes.

nesf's point is actually very accurate.

The system you seek is very like the U.S. Senate and Congress with two loose coalitions of like-minded politicians and real autonomy for the States.

What happens over there is that every important piece of legislation has tacked onto it a load of local pork-barrel politics bits.

Imagine for a minute the Finance Bill being passed because there was a new west Kerry tax credit added to allow the West Kerry T.D. vote for it and there was a living in Blanchardstown social welfare payment added for the Dublin West T.D.s It is often worth thinking about being careful for what you wish for.

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My solution to this would be to decentralize all local matters to local government, leading the Dail to only vote on nationwide legislation. That way there could be no parish pump in the Dail as the Dail would have no power over local matters in the first place, and one could then have the accountability I'm proposing without worrying about it encouraging a Dail full of Healy Raes.

You can't totally decouple national and local government. Just look at the issues in the US regarding this. I do agree that a decentralisation would be good though.

_Kaiser_

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Policy and broad ethos. I don't expect parties to adhere rigidly to everything over the course of five years, since conditions change in that time, but I would expect them to broadly follow it, yeah.

How does that fit with the current government's promises of a new approach to the crisis - not one more cent, labour's way, tax on a person's home is immoral etc

While I agree with you that circumstances change, the current lot got in and then U-turned on practically everything they had promised before polling day, and have actively made things worse (for the average Irish citizen) IMO though Enda's determination to be a "good European" first and foremost.

I do think that the whip system makes a farce of our so-called democracy as it just leaves 95% of the TD's making up the numbers (and getting ridiculously well paid for it) with the real power/decisions (whatever is left after the EU imposes its will anyway) centralised around the Cabinet table, Politburo style!

I also think we need limits on how many successive terms a party can be in government (ditto for the position of Taoiseach), and would even favour reducing the term from the current 5 to 4 years.

hatrickpatrick

nesf wrote: »

You can't totally decouple national and local government. Just look at the issues in the US regarding this. I do agree that a decentralisation would be good though.

The US is bollocksed because it's simply too big for any one federal government, which is an argument against a too-powerful EU rather than saying anything about national parliaments. Let's imagine for a second that a state government had all the powers of the current US federal government (with no federal government) and within that, different counties handled all local matters - this is more comparable to what I'm suggesting. Would it still be an unholy mess?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The US is bollocksed because it's simply too big for any one federal government, which is an argument against a too-powerful EU rather than saying anything about national parliaments. Let's imagine for a second that a state government had all the powers of the current US federal government (with no federal government) and within that, different counties handled all local matters - this is more comparable to what I'm suggesting. Would it still be an unholy mess?

I disagree completely. For a start the US is still the largest world economy and surviving the recession better than Europe.

And yes, it would be an unholy mess. The problem in the US parliamentary system is the lack of a whip culture and the ability of individual Senators and Congressmen to add their own pork barrel projects to a piece of legislation in return for their support of it.

Having strong States does not stop this.

steddyeddy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Just cannot see how a Government would get things done without a whip system. Any Government, without it, would be like having a constant hung Parliament. The alternative then, is to have all the TD s as independents to vote as they see fit and a cabinet elected from the collective, it just would not work. By being a party TD, then one has to expect to vote for the party line or become an independent.

It would not work in what sense? It would certainly work as a democracy.

steddyeddy

I don't see how we can consider ourselves a democracy with our current whip system. You vote for a politician based on their principles and then the party they are in comes into conflict with said principles and have to vote against it. It's actually sustaining parish pump politics. If you take away a politicians ability to stand on his/her principles what more can they do only fix the local roads!

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The US is bollocksed because it's simply too big for any one federal government, which is an argument against a too-powerful EU rather than saying anything about national parliaments. Let's imagine for a second that a state government had all the powers of the current US federal government (with no federal government) and within that, different counties handled all local matters - this is more comparable to what I'm suggesting. Would it still be an unholy mess?

I'm pretty much in agreement with Godge here, I think you're too easily explaining away the problems in the American system because they don't sit well with your position. You also haven't really dealt with that you can't avoid some oversight of local issues at national level in any Government system where there is a shared pool of income and expenditure between "States." And there will be because otherwise there is little reason or benefit to the union in the first play and normally there needs to be some redistribution within the system between local regions.

steddyeddy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If I'm voting for a member of a party, I'm voting in the expectation that they will vote in line with the party whip.

If I wanted a TD who voted in line with whatever he/she felt about an issue I'd vote for an independent.

So you only look at the party manifesto when voting?

steddyeddy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If candidates promise things that aren't party policy, then they've only themselves to blame.

Actually that's extremely short sighted. Party policy and what the party does once in power are different things. A candidtate could promise that child benifit wouldn't be touched in line with party policy for example and then the heads of the party could change their minds vote on a cut and the candidate could lose the whip. The whip prevents reform, pragmatisim and idealisim.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

I disagree completely. For a start the US is still the largest world economy and surviving the recession better than Europe.

The bollocksed comment was referring to politics, not the economy.

And yes, it would be an unholy mess. The problem in the US parliamentary system is the lack of a whip culture and the ability of individual Senators and Congressmen to add their own pork barrel projects to a piece of legislation in return for their support of it.

Having strong States does not stop this.

The lack of the whip system is one of the best things about US democracy, but how does having strong States not prevent parish pump politics? Federal politicians ideally wouldn't have any influence over purely local matters in such a system.

hardCopy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually that's extremely short sighted. Party policy and what the party does once in power are different things. A candidtate could promise that child benifit wouldn't be touched in line with party policy for example and then the heads of the party could change their minds vote on a cut and the candidate could lose the whip. The whip prevents reform, pragmatisim and idealisim.

I'd see the whip as being the only way to force through any reform in a parliament full of conservative backbenchers.

steddyeddy

hardCopy wrote: »

I'd see the whip as being the only way to force through any reform in a parliament full of conservative backbenchers.

I don't see the whip as the one who's going to reduce the power of the whip to be honest.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The lack of the whip system is one of the best things about US democracy, but how does having strong States not prevent parish pump politics? Federal politicians ideally wouldn't have any influence over purely local matters in such a system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge


I suppose if we adopted their system we might get a bridge to Inis Oir.

steddyeddy

Any endorsement of the whip system serves to reduce to power of the voters. It ensures that you have no effective way to vote for a policy.

Sand

steddyeddy wrote: »

Any endorsement of the whip system serves to reduce to power of the voters. It ensures that you have no effective way to vote for a policy.

You misunderstand steddyeddy. To its supporters the great benefit of the whip system is that it reduces the power of voters, leaving them with no effective way to vote for a policy. They can hold an election every couple of years to figure out who they will whip but otherwise entirely suspend democracy.

The benefits of this wonderful system of governance can be demonstrated by a review of modern Irish history with its wonderful tradition of economic, social and political progress. The whip system clearly has delivered decades of admirable governance for Irish citizens and prevented shameless parish pump politics. Nothing would have got done without it.

@Godge

I suppose if we adopted their system we might get a bridge to Inis Oir.

Or an international airport down in Shannon. Oh wait.

View

steddyeddy wrote: »

Any endorsement of the whip system serves to reduce to power of the voters. It ensures that you have no effective way to vote for a policy.

We live in a democracy. There is nothing to stop the voters from establishing and voting for new political parties to support a policy (or policies). Nor to stop voting for parties they currently support.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

You misunderstand steddyeddy. To its supporters the great benefit of the whip system is that it reduces the power of voters, leaving them with no effective way to vote for a policy. They can hold an election every couple of years to figure out who they will whip but otherwise entirely suspend democracy.

And this is where we have our fundamental disagreement. I couldn't give a rat's ass who is in the Dail as long as they're passing the legislation I want passed. Without a whip system, we'd be able to ensure this happened, instead of them being forced to vote with the party leadership.

The benefits of this wonderful system of governance can be demonstrated by a review of modern Irish history with its wonderful tradition of economic, social and political progress. The whip system clearly has delivered decades of admirable governance for Irish citizens and prevented shameless parish pump politics. Nothing would have got done without it.

Are you actually serious? It's allowed a corrupt, self serving elite to dictate everything about how this country is run, for their own benefit, with any benefit or harm to the rest of society merely an irrelevant side effect. Modern Irish history is a horror story of corruption and cronyism, and without a whip system we could've forced all of those corrupt "leaders" to behave themselves or lose their seats.

The only people who support the whip system are those who are anti-democracy. Why is it that you believe handing power over to a small number of totally unaccountable politicians with absolutely no way to stop them doing what they're doing if they get out of control, until the next election, is a good idea? Democracy isn't perfect but it's surely the lesser of two evils when compared with elitism.

Sand

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you actually serious?

In short, no.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

In short, no.

Having just read over your post, I now detect the hint of sarcasm, something which I'm absolutely hopeless at detecting through the faceless, toneless medium of the internet. Sorry 'bout that

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is where we have our fundamental disagreement. I couldn't give a rat's ass who is in the Dail as long as they're passing the legislation I want passed. Without a whip system, we'd be able to ensure this happened, instead of them being forced to vote with the party leadership.

The thing is elections aren't just about what one person wants. A person can vote for a politician because they believe they will do x y and z. Another person can vote for the same politician because of the politicians parties policies and couldn't care less about the personal promises the politician makes. What happens when the politicians individual promises and party policies conflict? What person should the politician listen to? In this situation the whip system aids one person's vote but hinders another persons.

Calling it anti democratic is hyperbole. Yes it can mean politicians have to ignore some voters but may mean they follow the will of the majority. Obviously that will vary on the situation.

Remember no democratic system is perfect. Voters can decide what system they feels meets their needs best.

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing is elections aren't just about what one person wants. A person can vote for a politician because they believe they will do x y and z. Another person can vote for the same politician because of the politicians parties policies and couldn't care less about the personal promises the politician makes. What happens when the politicians individual promises and party policies conflict? What person should the politician listen to? In this situation the whip system aids one person's vote but hinders another persons.

Without a whip system, the politicians would have to gauge which policy votes would sit well with the people who elect them and which wouldn't. If everyone understood that going into an election, there wouldn't be the conflict of interest you speak of - you assume a dismantling of the whip during a term, there's no need for that - it could happen with effect from the next election onwards, so everyone who votes knows in advance that there won't be a whip and that they're voting for a manifesto.

Calling it anti democratic is hyperbole. Yes it can mean politicians have to ignore some voters but may mean they follow the will of the majority. Obviously that will vary on the situation.[/QUOTE]

They should be following the will of the majority in their constituency, not in their party. That's who each of them is supposed to be representing, and the whip system makes it completely pointless for constituents to bother lobbying TDs, as you only see defections over absolutely monuments issues and never over minor ones.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They should be following the will of the majority in their constituency, not in their party. That's who each of them is supposed to be representing, and the whip system makes it completely pointless for constituents to bother lobbying TDs, as you only see defections over absolutely monuments issues and never over minor ones.

I think that's a fair point. Its a mismatch with our current system. Many politicians are elected on local issues but have to go with the majority of people want on a national level which can contradict what they promised. If we had list system were we solely voted for the party or no whip the situation wouldn't arise. However its does support Godge's point that we would end up with more pork barrel politics as politicians would be more concerned with local issues than important national ones. As others have mentioned and the upcoming budget will show you can't clearly split local from national.

For me the whip acts as a break on parish pump politics. The only advantage of current mix of systems that politicians have to come from the local area and gain local support. A list system while having the advantage of drawing people from other fields would result in the loss of this ground level interaction. Then again you may view this interaction as worthless in the context of the whip.

Also I don't think TD's should be defecting over minor issues. If you can't get your head around minor issues how can you deal with big ones. The job of a TD is to represent everyone in the country and take their opinions into account as far as is possible. If they only listen to the people who voted for them and ignore completely people who didn't they're not doing their job.

steddyeddy

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing is elections aren't just about what one person wants. A person can vote for a politician because they believe they will do x y and z. Another person can vote for the same politician because of the politicians parties policies and couldn't care less about the personal promises the politician makes. What happens when the politicians individual promises and party policies conflict? What person should the politician listen to? In this situation the whip system aids one person's vote but hinders another persons.

Calling it anti democratic is hyperbole. Yes it can mean politicians have to ignore some voters but may mean they follow the will of the majority. Obviously that will vary on the situation.

Remember no democratic system is perfect. Voters can decide what system they feels meets their needs best.

Actually the whip system doesn't protect the will of the majority. The majority could elect politicians based on stance X and the whip could decide that they vote for stance Y.

I also don't see how voters decide the system?

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

I think that's a fair point. Its a mismatch with our current system. Many politicians are elected on local issues but have to go with the majority of people want on a national level which can contradict what they promised. If we had list system were we solely voted for the party or no whip the situation wouldn't arise. However its does support Godge's point that we would end up with more pork barrel politics as politicians would be more concerned with local issues than important national ones. As others have mentioned and the upcoming budget will show you can't clearly split local from national.

You can split a lot of things. Not all, but a lot more than we currently have, in terms of empowering local governments and disempowering the national parliament. This would drastically reduce - you're never going to eliminate - the parish pump, and make it safe for us to have national politicians who are beholden to their constituents on purely national issues, as it should be.

For me the whip acts as a break on parish pump politics. The only advantage of current mix of systems that politicians have to come from the local area and gain local support. A list system while having the advantage of drawing people from other fields would result in the loss of this ground level interaction. Then again you may view this interaction as worthless in the context of the whip.

I do, but the answer is to get rid of the whip - a party list system would further enshrine the idea that you're not dealing with politicians who are going to represent the wishes of their constituents when it comes to voting for or against legislation.

Also I don't think TD's should be defecting over minor issues. If you can't get your head around minor issues how can you deal with big ones.

It's not abut defecting, on minor issues (as iwth everything else) they should be voting in a manner which reflects a considered analysis of what their constituents want. Take any issue really, the abortion issue was a gigantic and explosive one so let's leave that to one side for the moment - take the upcoming laws about minimum pricing for example, which have been discussed to death on this forum already - they should only pass if a majority of the people actually want them. Right now whether or not they pass is entirely related to how the cabinet votes, and that's pure bullsh!t when you consider that the vast majority of the people those politicians are supposed to represent don't agree with them. Sherlock's SOPA bill was another example - had that been entirely based on public opinion it wouldn't have had a hope in hell of passing. When parliament is passing legislation which makes the majority of the people groan, who the f*ck are they actually representing except their own chosen vested interests? (The media industry and the Vinters association, respectively)

The job of a TD is to represent everyone in the country and take their opinions into account as far as is possible. If they only listen to the people who voted for them and ignore completely people who didn't they're not doing their job.

This is where I would disagree with you - we have four TDs currently in my constituency which is Dun Laoghaire. It's their job to vote as the people who voted for them would want them to vote. It's not their job to vote for legislation in terms of public opinion in Dublin South, because Dublin South has its own TDs who it has direct power over in terms of re-election, and therefore can (without a whip like we have now) force them to vote in particular ways through the simple fact that they'll lose their seats otherwise.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They should be following the will of the majority in their constituency,

Says who?

Did the people who vote for Joe Higgins vote for him because they want him to vote for some variation on FG's or FF's policies (as that is almost certainly what the majority in his constituency support)?

Should a TD vote for you to be slowly tortured to death if the latest opinion poll indicates that is what his constituents want?

Or, does the politician - in the words of Burke - owe his constituents his judgment not slavish obedience?