Peter Mathews TD resigns from Fine Gael

Larbre34

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1003/478103-peter-mathews-fine-gael/

What an utter toolbag of a public representative he has turned out to be. Naive, ill-informed, patronising bluffer. The people of Dublin South must be seething at the second successive Fine Gael pop-star failure they have been landed with. By all accounts there has been blood on the walls of the recent Cumann meetings.

As another South Dublin TD once said about another party "You're playing senior hurling now", a point Mathews must have missed. Back to the day job in 2016 so.

Sand

Peter Matthews stance on the Protection of Life bill bothers me for much the same reason a Creighton's stance did. By citing morality and conscience (essentially their own personal religious beliefs rather than morality) as a cause for resigning the whip they imply that they could have voted against other, earlier legislation if they considered it immoral or unconscionable. But they didn't, despite many occasions to do so.

Despite that, I fully understand the conventional political response that Matthews is somehow at fault for his departure from FG - as if it was inconceivable any political representative could decide FG had moved away from *its* positions and left him behind. That he somehow didn't have a brass enough neck to make it in politics. How quickly people forget that Fine Gael came knocking on Matthews door to stand for them in the last election, with Fine Gael hoping to capitalise on his already established media presence. It's not like Fine Gael raised him up from humble beginnings and hes biting the hand that feeds. He joined FG on certain conditions, FG breached those conditions in his view, he looked increasingly uncomfortable having to be associated with views he disagreed with, he left/ was pushed.

It should be clear from the above that I don't sympathise with Matthews particular reasons for going against the government, but I do welcome that more and more TDs feel willing and able to go against the whip system and go Independent. Obviously, dyed in the wool party hacks will be bitter and angry about it the only hope people have of actual representation in the Dail is by an Independent candidate. The people of Dublin South can decide to vote for Matthews or not next time out, but they can at least be sure their votes will count and their political representative wont simply be muzzled by Enda Kenny.

Mr.Micro

Larbre34 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1003/478103-peter-mathews-fine-gael/

What an utter toolbag of a public representative he has turned out to be. Naive, ill-informed, patronising bluffer. The people of Dublin South must be seething at the second successive Fine Gael pop-star failure they have been landed with. By all accounts there has been blood on the walls of the recent Cumann meetings.

As another South Dublin TD once said about another party "You're playing senior hurling now", a point Mathews must have missed. Back to the day job in 2016 so.

He does not know what he stands for...... just blows with the wind. He was elected on the back of the financial crisis and little else it appears. He comes across as very self important and the Dail is full of them, so he was just another one in the crowd.

raymon

Hopefully now the Reform Alliance can start building a new party.

This may be the only chance for a credible new centre right party to emerge

Note to Reform Alliance : get rid of Fidelma(do you know who I am ?) Healy Eames before she gets too cosy. In my opinion she represents all that is wrong with Irish politics.

Good luck

johnnyskeleton

I find it sad that the reason we elected him ie his knowledge of banking and his willingness to speak up about it was scarcely heard about, but his previously undisclosed fanatical pro life stance was all over the headlines.

Mr.Micro

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I find it sad that the reason we elected him ie his knowledge of banking and his willingness to speak up about it was scarcely heard about, but his previously undisclosed fanatical pro life stance was all over the headlines.

In fairness he was frequently on Vincent Browne's show before the last election and we heard all about the banks and his takes on the bailouts etc. The latter part of your post is new to me though.

Sierra Oscar

raymon wrote: »

Hopefully now the Reform Alliance can start building a new party.

Those in the Reform Alliance don't seem too pushed about starting a new party. Lucinda is using it as a base to build up support for herself when she is inevitably readmitted to the parliamentary party. She is interested in leading Fine Gael and no other party - and she has her eyes set on the top job long-term. Lucinda would have notions that she will be the first female Taoiseach.

As for Matthews - don't be surprised if he retires from politics at the next election. Fine Gael took three seats in Dublin South at the last election - it is now mainly part of Dublin-Rathdown, a new three seater constituency. Fine Gael will not be taking more than one seat in that constituency next time around.

johnnyskeleton

Mr.Micro wrote: »

In fairness he was frequently on Vincent Browne's show before the last election

And then kinda petered out in the dail

and we heard all about the banks and his takes on the bailouts etc. The latter part of your post is new to me though.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fg-td-mathews-breaks-ranks-on-abortion-and-pledges-to-vote-no-29332223.html

spank_inferno

He was decamped to Communicorp FM for the drive-time shows.

He seems a bit dim.

No lose to FG in the long term.

micosoft

Sand wrote: »

It should be clear from the above that I don't sympathise with Matthews particular reasons for going against the government, but I do welcome that more and more TDs feel willing and able to go against the whip system and go Independent. Obviously, dyed in the wool party hacks will be bitter and angry about it the only hope people have of actual representation in the Dail is by an Independent candidate. The people of Dublin South can decide to vote for Matthews or not next time out, but they can at least be sure their votes will count and their political representative wont simply be muzzled by Enda Kenny.

Can you explain exactly how our system of Parliamentary democracy with a Government elected from Parliament to rule will work? This anti-whip nonsense seems to have become received wisdom in Ireland when it is in fact at the core of how our democracy functions.

No Whip = no party
No party = No credible Government (will they/won't they)
No Credible Government = no legislative programme
No legislative programme = no progress.

It Strikes me that when people agree with the proposed legislation at hand they are happy to have it whipped to get it through.
When they don't agree they want a free vote in the hope that it won't get through (even if it may be in the manifesto of the majority Government).

It should be remembered that this legislation was called for by the Constitution and and the Supreme Courts interpretation. The Government of the day was obliged to get it passed. Not some whim by the Taoiseach. Matthews et al forget this as they pose of defenders of "democracy".

Loafing Oaf

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Those in the Reform Alliance don't seem too pushed about starting a new party. Lucinda is using it as a base to build up support for herself when she is inevitably readmitted to the parliamentary party. She is interested in leading Fine Gael and no other party - and she has her eyes set on the top job long-term. Lucinda would have notions that she will be the first female Taoiseach.

I don't think Lucinda has thought things through properly. The only thing to do to get back into the PP in time for the next election is to keep her head down and her mouth shut. The more of an impact the RA makes, the deeper the wedge she drives between herself and the party. But of course Lucinda can't bear to be out of the papers for more than a week.

Sand

micosoft wrote: »

Can you explain exactly how our system of Parliamentary democracy with a Government elected from Parliament to rule will work?

I'd imagine that to get legislation passed parties would have to form around shared idealogical views/positions. I'd imagine politicians would have to seek allies both within and without their parties. I'd imagine that rather than simply relying on threats the government would have to explain and justify its policies to gain support.

Some might dare say that a government forced to explain and justify its policies might govern better than a government which can simply ram through any old nonsense without proper examination or debate.

This anti-whip nonsense seems to have become received wisdom in Ireland when it is in fact at the core of how our democracy functions.

No Whip = no party
No party = No credible Government (will they/won't they)
No Credible Government = no legislative programme
No legislative programme = no progress.

You know, several hundred years ago people argued against *any* democratic representation for the exact same reasons.

It Strikes me that when people agree with the proposed legislation at hand they are happy to have it whipped to get it through.
When they don't agree they want a free vote in the hope that it won't get through (even if it may be in the manifesto of the majority Government).

I agree - I actually find the calls for a free vote when it comes to hardline Roman Catholic issues stomach churning. The same people calling for "free votes" then are entirely happy to fall in line on every other vote.

BuilderPlumber

Peter Matthews and Lucinda Creighton resigned and stood up to their party's heavy handed leadership ......................... but for the WRONG cause!

Imagine if these two did it instead over the unfair allocation of public finances, the protection of the rich, unjust cutbacks that create unemployment and poverty, and the seemingly untouchable status of the corrupt banksters. I actually thought Matthews left due to the upcoming dictatorship festival we called 'da budget'. But, no, it was over 'abortion'. If the anti-dictatorship organisations were as well organised as the Pro-Life thing, then we would see action to curb elitism in this country. Instead, that cause is left to dissident republicans - more dictators.

BuilderPlumber

Sand wrote: »

I agree - I actually find the calls for a free vote when it comes to hardline Roman Catholic issues stomach churning. The same people calling for "free votes" then are entirely happy to fall in line on every other vote.

I find it strange that Peter Matthews is 100% silent on the totally uncaring, anti-Christian dictatorship that presently sweeps the country where people are mere statistics and cutbacks are imposed on the population causing mass unemployment, severe pain and hardship that could spiral our country to a Syria type crisis in 2 or three years time. If this man is supposed to be so pro-life and Christian, he should criticise his government's stance and the budgets, and note all the depression and suicide caused, and end support of the maintenance of obscene salaries while people inclusive of those with postgrad qualifications, etc. live in dire poverty.

donegal__road

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Peter Matthews and Lucinda Creighton resigned and stood up to their party's heavy handed leadership ......................... but for the WRONG cause!

Imagine if these two did it instead over the unfair allocation of public finances, the protection of the rich, unjust cutbacks that create unemployment and poverty, and the seemingly untouchable status of the corrupt banksters. I actually thought Matthews left due to the upcoming dictatorship festival we called 'da budget'. But, no, it was over 'abortion'. If the anti-dictatorship organisations were as well organised as the Pro-Life thing, then we would see action to curb elitism in this country. Instead, that cause is left to dissident republicans - more dictators.

do you mean SF?

Good loser

Sand wrote: »

Peter Matthews stance on the Protection of Life bill bothers me for much the same reason a Creighton's stance did. By citing morality and conscience (essentially their own personal religious beliefs rather than morality) as a cause for resigning the whip they imply that they could have voted against other, earlier legislation if they considered it immoral or unconscionable. But they didn't, despite many occasions to do so.

Despite that, I fully understand the conventional political response that Matthews is somehow at fault for his departure from FG - as if it was inconceivable any political representative could decide FG had moved away from *its* positions and left him behind. That he somehow didn't have a brass enough neck to make it in politics. How quickly people forget that Fine Gael came knocking on Matthews door to stand for them in the last election, with Fine Gael hoping to capitalise on his already established media presence. It's not like Fine Gael raised him up from humble beginnings and hes biting the hand that feeds. He joined FG on certain conditions, FG breached those conditions in his view, he looked increasingly uncomfortable having to be associated with views he disagreed with, he left/ was pushed.

It should be clear from the above that I don't sympathise with Matthews particular reasons for going against the government, but I do welcome that more and more TDs feel willing and able to go against the whip system and go Independent. Obviously, dyed in the wool party hacks will be bitter and angry about it the only hope people have of actual representation in the Dail is by an Independent candidate. The people of Dublin South can decide to vote for Matthews or not next time out, but they can at least be sure their votes will count and their political representative wont simply be muzzled by Enda Kenny.

That is utter rubbish. Is it an accident that parliaments all over the world are 'run' by political parties? Parties are at the core of democracy.

Our peculiar PR system has landed us (unfortunately) with a plethora of independents. All personality and damn all policies. The sooner they're out of the place the better.

Loafing Oaf

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I find it strange that Peter Matthews is 100% silent on the totally uncaring, anti-Christian dictatorship that presently sweeps the country where people are mere statistics and cutbacks are imposed on the population causing mass unemployment, severe pain and hardship that could spiral our country to a Syria type crisis in 2 or three years time. If this man is supposed to be so pro-life and Christian, he should criticise his government's stance and the budgets, and note all the depression and suicide caused, and end support of the maintenance of obscene salaries while people inclusive of those with postgrad qualifications, etc. live in dire poverty.

Yes I'd imagine Fine Gae's approach to the economic crisis came as a total shock to Matthews after he was elected.

Sand

Good loser wrote: »

That is utter rubbish. Is it an accident that parliaments all over the world are 'run' by political parties? Parties are at the core of democracy.

That's a convincing argument - two unsupported statements and a query that might be described as rhetorical only that it doesn't actually lead to a point.

Bullseye1

Good loser wrote: »

That is utter rubbish. Is it an accident that parliaments all over the world are 'run' by political parties? Parties are at the core of democracy.

Our peculiar PR system has landed us (unfortunately) with a plethora of independents. All personality and damn all policies. The sooner they're out of the place the better.

Are you suggesting the current political parties are any better? The sooner we have proper political reform the better. FF, FG and Labour have he their chance and have made a complete mess of governing the country. I can see a large increase in independents in the next elections. People are totally disillusioned with all the parties.

BuilderPlumber

donegal__road wrote: »

do you mean SF?

No, I mean the dissident republican types. The CIRA, RIRA, New Real IRA. The Dano types in Love/Hate. The types who mix violence with pub-republicanism and alcohol, and then go out and attempt to overthrow the state. A few years back, we could call them a fringe minority. The way the government has been acting the last few years, they are literally handing power to these guys.

As for mainstream SF: they are becoming more mainstream day by day. Expect them to become the new Fianna Fail soon, especially when MLMcD and Chris Andrews rise to the top of it! If they can keep clear of the corruption that tainted 1980s, 1990s and 2000s Fianna Fail, they could well be onto something!

BuilderPlumber

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yes I'd imagine Fine Gae's approach to the economic crisis came as a total shock to Matthews after he was elected.

When it comes to dealing with creating a fair economy, all you hear from the pre-election politicians is they will end the injustice and then they fool the people, get elected and keep robbing from the people, making the people weaker. No one takes a stance, only they defend defend defend or at best, stay silent and wash their hands of it but don't act against it.

When it comes to 'abortion', they are sincere and protest. It seems to be the only thing that they feel genuinely about for some very strange reason!! When it comes to all the hurt and upset caused by their elitist economic policies (that is, unemployment, job insecurity, increased crime, depression, inflation, suicide and violence), not one of them will take a stance.

BuilderPlumber

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Are you suggesting the current political parties are any better? The sooner we have proper political reform the better. FF, FG and Labour have he their chance and have made a complete mess of governing the country. I can see a large increase in independents in the next elections. People are totally disillusioned with all the parties.

FF, FG and Labour have ultimately failed the people over the past number of years. Bertie sold us a scam get rich quick scheme and lead us to believe our country was a lot richer. Since then, our governments have been taking all they can from the people to bail out banksters and developers. And to maintain their own greedy salaries. Indeed, they are now selling us the direct opposite of Bertie: that our country is a lot poorer! I never bought Bertie's we are the second richest country in the world, or either do I believe the current stuff either (if we were as poor as they say, then there would not be 10s of 1000s of prycks on obscene salaries robbing the rest of us).

FG/Labour promised to END what FF were at but only continued it, only doing worse things. Now, Labour (who have the most horrendous of the ministers in this government) are amazed they are not doing well in the polls: well, what the hell did they expect when they rolled back on their promises and implemented more dictatorship to keep the elite filthy rich and the people weak and poor.

It is high time this bull ends and that as many politicians stand up and be counted just like they do when it comes to 'abortion'. In the end, the new Ireland will forgive those who turned away from austerity dictatorship, but what faces those who defended it will be very very serious in the end.

Ironically, FF will be forgiven more easily than the current government because the current government were elected on a mandate to reverse cutbacks, stamp out corruption, reform the banks, and give jobs to the people. Since they have failed miserably on this and chose to commit the sin of continuing the same policies, their mandate to govern and their legitimacy as a government is in tatters.

But, when it comes to abortion, we do see the type of debate we should see about the increasingly Ceaucescu style dictatorship that is creeping in here. It is so sad.

Loafing Oaf

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

When it comes to dealing with creating a fair economy, all you hear from the pre-election politicians is they will end the injustice and then they fool the people, get elected and keep robbing from the people, making the people weaker. No one takes a stance, only they defend defend defend or at best, stay silent and wash their hands of it but don't act against it.

When it comes to 'abortion', they are sincere and protest. It seems to be the only thing that they feel genuinely about for some very strange reason!! When it comes to all the hurt and upset caused by their elitist economic policies (that is, unemployment, job insecurity, increased crime, depression, inflation, suicide and violence), not one of them will take a stance.

I wasn't following Peter Matthews's personal pre-election pronouncements all that closely, but he was running for Fine Gael, a party that was signed up to the bailout deal. I don't think it's very reasonable to expect him to suddenly start coming on like Richard Boyd-Barrett...

raymon

Builderplumber , can you outline your plan for our recovery and name a few TDs that you would admire.

I suspect you may be reading the Sunday Independent too often.

Manach

A pity that someone of such consistent Pro-life belief felt the need to resign instead of trying to reform and move that party back to a position more in line with its historical roots if he had been allowed to rejoin.

raymon

Manach wrote: »

A pity that someone of such consistent Pro-life belief felt the need to resign instead of trying to reform and move that party back to a position more in line with its historical roots if he had been allowed to rejoin.

FG cut his phone off before he could sit down. To stay in FG and keep his self respect would have been unlikely.

He now has an opportunity to gather like minded politicians into a group.

I don't agree with his pro life nonsense , but good luck to him.

keeponhurling

So why is he leaving FG now, if this all stems from the abortion bill, which was months ago ?

Palmach

raymon wrote: »

FG cut his phone off before he could sit down. To stay in FG and keep his self respect would have been unlikely.

He now has an opportunity to gather like minded politicians into a group.

I don't agree with his pro life nonsense , but good luck to him.

Why is being pro-life "nonsense"? Because you don't agree with it. It amazes and shocks me that in the midst of the worst economic crisis that was largely bank made a banking expert is removed from the Finance Committee because of the petty vindictiveness of Enda Kenny. Kenny has been sitting in Daíl Eirean since 1975 and has never ever done anything remotely reforming or new. He kept the head down and filled the potholes, got the medical cards and by dint of last man standing got the top job. It is glorified county Councillors and not people like Peter Matthews who got us into this mess. If the RA *chuckle* does become a party it will by vote, my financial support and my help. Well done Peter.

raymon

Palmach wrote: »

Why is being pro-life "nonsense"? Because you don't agree with it. It amazes and shocks me that in the midst of the worst economic crisis that was largely bank made a banking expert is removed from the Finance Committee because of the petty vindictiveness of Enda Kenny. Kenny has been sitting in Daíl Eirean since 1975 and has never ever done anything remotely reforming or new. He kept the head down and filled the potholes, got the medical cards and by dint of last man standing got the top job. It is glorified county Councillors and not people like Peter Matthews who got us into this mess. If the RA *chuckle* does become a party it will by vote, my financial support and my help. Well done Peter.

I am wishing the guy good luck too .

I personally don't agree with his politics but would celebrate the entry of a new party.

Women should be protected if their life is in danger and most of the poulation agreed.

However they are all big boys and girls. If they dont want to follow the party line they should leave and he did. Well done and good luck.

PRAF

micosoft wrote: »

Can you explain exactly how our system of Parliamentary democracy with a Government elected from Parliament to rule will work? This anti-whip nonsense seems to have become received wisdom in Ireland when it is in fact at the core of how our democracy functions.

No Whip = no party
No party = No credible Government (will they/won't they)
No Credible Government = no legislative programme
No legislative programme = no progress.

It Strikes me that when people agree with the proposed legislation at hand they are happy to have it whipped to get it through.
When they don't agree they want a free vote in the hope that it won't get through (even if it may be in the manifesto of the majority Government).

It should be remembered that this legislation was called for by the Constitution and and the Supreme Courts interpretation. The Government of the day was obliged to get it passed. Not some whim by the Taoiseach. Matthews et al forget this as they pose of defenders of "democracy".

I agree that a 'no whip' system would be a recipe for indecision, lack of progress, and ultimately disaster in a country such as ours. However, IMO there is a very strong argument for a relaxation of the whip system. I don't believe it should apply all of the time.

Palmach

The whip system is barely used in many other European countries and in contrast to the absurd suggestions of some that it is a recipe for indecision these countries actually do just fine.

Manach

As an example of an extremely poor usage of the whip system in politics, from a recent book which dealt in part with Tony Blair's government, it describe how he so dominated the party via this system that even the cabinet meetings were reduced to mere update sessions (instead of proper debating sessions) and this directly to his rush to the Iraq war, dismissing the need for legal justification and pushing through to military action.
Whilst Mr. Kenny is unlikely to invade anyone in the short term, it would be nice if there were a mechanism to allow deviation from party monoculture.

Palmach

Manach wrote: »

As an example of an extremely poor usage of the whip system in politics, from a recent book which dealt in part with Tony Blair's government, it describe how he so dominated the party via this system that even the cabinet meetings were reduced to mere update sessions (instead of proper debating sessions) and this directly to his rush to the Iraq war, dismissing the need for legal justification and pushing through to military action.
Whilst Mr. Kenny is unlikely to invade anyone in the short term, it would be nice if there were a mechanism to allow deviation from party monoculture.

The current system suits the likes of Kenny. There is little external debate. He avoids any public discussion and gets the TDs whipped through the lobbies.

PRAF

Palmach wrote: »

The whip system is barely used in many other European countries and in contrast to the absurd suggestions of some that it is a recipe for indecision these countries actually do just fine.

So do you advocate banning the current whip system or just curtailing it? Also, which countries do you have in mind when you say they barely use any whip system at all?

The danger of having no whip system in Ireland, IMO anyway, is that backbenchers would be even more vulnerable to lobbyists. Given the strength of certain lobby groups in Ireland as well as our past track record in terms of parochial politics and even political corruption, it could well be a disaster.

Sometimes govts need to make unpopular decisions. As such, a whip system of some kind is a necessary evil.

Palmach

PRAF wrote: »

So do you advocate banning the current whip system or just curtailing it? Also, which countries do you have in mind when you say they barely use any whip system at all?

The danger of having no whip system in Ireland, IMO anyway, is that backbenchers would be even more vulnerable to lobbyists. Given the strength of certain lobby groups in Ireland as well as our past track record in terms of parochial politics and even political corruption, it could well be a disaster.

Sometimes govts need to make unpopular decisions. As such, a whip system of some kind is a necessary evil.

Whipping tends to be a feature of countries that were in the British Empire by and large. Scandinavian countries don't use whips afaik and neither does Holland. The reason being is they use consensus and the parties tend to be ideological so politicians in a left wing party tend to be on the same wavelength. Our politicians are often vision-free parish pump county councilors whose goal is to hang onto their seat for as along as possible.

When there is a revolt in the UK, which also has the whip system, voting against your own party doesn't get you cast into the wilderness like it does here. Witness the recent vote on Syria.

If you don't have the whip it meas the cabinet would have to sit and clearly debate the issue with politicians and win them over. Again a lot easier in a list system rather than the dog eat dog parish oriented system we have here.

PRAF

Palmach wrote: »

Whipping tends to be a feature of countries that were in the British Empire by and large. Scandinavian countries don't use whips afaik and neither does Holland. The reason being is they use consensus and the parties tend to be ideological so politicians in a left wing party tend to be on the same wavelength. Our politicians are often vision-free parish pump county councilors whose goal is to hang onto their seat for as along as possible.

When there is a revolt in the UK, which also has the whip system, voting against your own party doesn't get you cast into the wilderness like it does here. Witness the recent vote on Syria.

If you don't have the whip it meas the cabinet would have to sit and clearly debate the issue with politicians and win them over. Again a lot easier in a list system rather than the dog eat dog parish oriented system we have here.

Unfortunately none of the political parties are advocating any great changes to the whip system. Hopefully someone brings it up in the constitutional convention..

Loafing Oaf

PRAF wrote: »

Unfortunately none of the political parties are advocating any great changes to the whip system. Hopefully someone brings it up in the constitutional convention..

It's not a constitutional issue, it derives from the parties' internal rules.

PRAF

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

It's not a constitutional issue, it derives from the parties' internal rules.

Correct. Unless the parties volunteer to relax the whip system, or unless all of the backbench fodder from across party lines rebel against it, it is probably here to stay.

However I think in Germany they have either legislative or constitutional safeguards to prevent abuses of the whip system. Might be something to consider here too

BuilderPlumber

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I wasn't following Peter Matthews's personal pre-election pronouncements all that closely, but he was running for Fine Gael, a party that was signed up to the bailout deal. I don't think it's very reasonable to expect him to suddenly start coming on like Richard Boyd-Barrett...

It is one thing signing up for the bailout deal (unfortunately, it was necessary after the banking fiasco) but it is another matter how that deal is implemented and negotiated. The problem in Ireland remains the same before and after the 2010 IMF/EU deal and the 2011 election: greed at the top is protected no matter what and nothing has been done to solve any of Ireland's problems because greed at the top is the problem.

micosoft

There is a reasoned argument by Leo Varadkar here for the Whip System.

Please read it and play the arguments not the man.

Fundamentally those arguing most forcefully against the Whip System are those who did not vote for the Government or agree with the Government. The belief is that if there was no whip that you could frustrate the other side with endless "checks" and "balances" to prevent them passing their programme of Government. The result would be permanent deadlock as can be seen in the US system. That's not "democracy" - that's the subversion of Democracy by minority interests.

BuilderPlumber

raymon wrote: »

Builderplumber , can you outline your plan for our recovery and name a few TDs that you would admire.

I suspect you may be reading the Sunday Independent too often.

There is nobody in Irish politics at present I'd admire. They all tend to promise things will be better if they get into power and then turn around and do the same.

A plan for recovery in this country requires true reform. First of all, politicians should be more in touch with their people. They should spend time in their constituencies and listen to people's problems and concerns and then do some of the following:

1. Set up initiatives to create employment and local business.
2. Ever notice that everything that needs to be done here takes forever. Cut out the red tape and allow things to move swiftly. Even paying tax online is a lengthy process and actually obviously disadvantageous to the government!
3. Government's should be held accountable to their promises and if they fail the people, or do a poor job, should be removed.
4. Budgets should be demystified and not used as a fear mechanism.
5. Wrongdoers should be punished, money laundering laws should be stricter and those who robbed our banks made pay back what is owed, and then since the people ALREADY paid, the money should be spent giving back the people jobs or a topup on their income to compensate them for the inconvenience of the last 5 years.
6. An apology from government regarding their atrocious behaviour of the last 10 years then should be given by ALL the parties that have been in power in that period.
7. Unrealistic employers then should be tackled: they should be told to treat their employees fairly, train them properly, not have so much power to dismiss them, and to tell them stop blaming colleges when they don't want to train them themselves (colleges qualify graduates but organisations have specific practices that in no way colleges could train them because these are organisation specific). Employers who are very dismissive of colleges and their employees and give no training should not be given the airtime they get and they should not be taken seriously and have so much power.
8. Banks should be encouraged to lend to and invest in viable businesses and ideas but reckless lending should be discouraged in a similar way.
9. Politicians should not treat people like statistics and realise that their actions hurt people.
10. Any anti-business damaging practices (even if they are considered in the name of health, etc.) should be abandoned as they create further unemployment, bureaucracy and barriers to success.

That would be a start to recovery.

micosoft

1. Set up initiatives to create employment and local business.
http://www.enterpriseboards.ie/find_your_enterpirse_board.aspx

2. Ever notice that everything that needs to be done here takes forever. Cut out the red tape and allow things to move swiftly. Even paying tax online is a lengthy process and actually obviously disadvantageous to the government!
Globally speaking we are one of the best countries in the world to setup and run a business in
Pretty much every other business person would disagree with you re Revenue Online. It's better then the UK and US systems.

3. Government's should be held accountable to their promises and if they fail the people, or do a poor job, should be removed.
It's called an election.

4. Budgets should be demystified and not used as a fear mechanism.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/budget_2012.html
Every Newspaper has a pullout on the topic.

5. Wrongdoers should be punished, money laundering laws should be stricter and those who robbed our banks made pay back what is owed, and then since the people ALREADY paid, the money should be spent giving back the people jobs or a topup on their income to compensate them for the inconvenience of the last 5 years.
We have a justice system in Ireland that requires due process whether you like it or not.

6. An apology from government regarding their atrocious behaviour of the last 10 years then should be given by ALL the parties that have been in power in that period.
So Fine Gael are responsible for the past 10 years when Fianna Fail was in power for the first 8.5 years of your makey uppy time period?

7. Unrealistic employers then should be tackled: they should be told to treat their employees fairly, train them properly, not have so much power to dismiss them, and to tell them stop blaming colleges when they don't want to train them themselves (colleges qualify graduates but organisations have specific practices that in no way colleges could train them because these are organisation specific). Employers who are very dismissive of colleges and their employees and give no training should not be given the airtime they get and they should not be taken seriously and have so much power.
http://www.employmentrights.ie

8. Banks should be encouraged to lend to and invest in viable businesses and ideas but reckless lending should be discouraged in a similar way.
http://www.creditreview.ie/default.aspx
http://www.microfinanceireland.ie/

9. Politicians should not treat people like statistics and realise that their actions hurt people.
Given the level of representation and the fact every TD has a clinic on a weekly basis in this country I think they know full well the impact of the cuts. Unfortunately they live in the Adult world where difficult decisions have to be made.

10. Any anti-business damaging practices (even if they are considered in the name of health, etc.) should be abandoned as they create further unemployment, bureaucracy and barriers to success.
So it's OK to kill employees but not be "unrealistic" as per 7 Interesting set of priorities.

The problem builderplumber is that you seem utterly unaware of what has been done and why it has been done in this state. Instead you think the people who run the state are fools and you just happen to have all the answers. It's an odd worldview that's not hugely constructive.

Sand

PRAF wrote: »

So do you advocate banning the current whip system or just curtailing it? Also, which countries do you have in mind when you say they barely use any whip system at all?

The danger of having no whip system in Ireland, IMO anyway, is that backbenchers would be even more vulnerable to lobbyists. Given the strength of certain lobby groups in Ireland as well as our past track record in terms of parochial politics and even political corruption, it could well be a disaster.

Sometimes govts need to make unpopular decisions. As such, a whip system of some kind is a necessary evil.

The problem with discussion of any one single reform is that it tends to be reduced down to the level where the reform is falsely framed as a single, isolated reform rather than as part of a wider package.

To your point on the vulnerability of TDs to lobbyists Id argue three points.

One, lobbyists are already heavily influencing the TDs that control the whips. You control a half dozen of the right TDs, they control the whip, they control the other TDs you needed. Removing the whip actually makes it harder for lobbyists to influence political affairs because now they have to influence 80-90 TDs directly instead of a half dozen as under the current system. Much harder.

Second, is it a problem if TDs are more responsive/representative of lobbyists? Those lobbyists in the main are voters - is it a problem that voters lobby their TDs? Voters are far less likely to have influence under the current whip system - your average voter might get access to their TD, they have practically no chance of getting a hearing with Enda Kenny. The large lobby groups do though.

Third, there is already a solution for removing the power of lobbyists and I believe it is the only way to also remove the whip convincingly: secret voting by TDs. TDs can then vote without fear of either the whip or lobby groups.

As for parochial politics - the current situation is serving parochial, parish pump politics. Changing it requires moving away from the whip system which is clearly not the solution.

BuilderPlumber

micosoft wrote: »

1. Set up initiatives to create employment and local business.
http://www.enterpriseboards.ie/find_your_enterpirse_board.aspx

Yes, and our politicians should support these more!

micosoft wrote: »

2. Ever notice that everything that needs to be done here takes forever. Cut out the red tape and allow things to move swiftly. Even paying tax online is a lengthy process and actually obviously disadvantageous to the government!
Globally speaking we are one of the best countries in the world to setup and run a business in
Pretty much every other business person would

Makes me wonder what the worst are like though I'm sure Germany, US, UK, Scandinavian countries are way ahead of us. North Korea ain't!!

micosoft wrote: »

disagree with you re Revenue Online. It's better then the UK and US systems.

3. Government's should be held accountable to their promises and if they fail the people, or do a poor job, should be removed.
It's called an election.

Elections are a joke here like most places! They forget very quickly once they get into power. Also, the terms are too long. Give them a 2 year term and they may remember who elects them a little bit more!!

micosoft wrote: »

4. Budgets should be demystified and not used as a fear mechanism.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/budget_2012.html
Every Newspaper has a pullout on the topic.

5. Wrongdoers should be punished, money laundering laws should be stricter and those who robbed our banks made pay back what is owed, and then since the people ALREADY paid, the money should be spent giving back the people jobs or a topup on their income to compensate them for the inconvenience of the last 5 years.
We have a justice system in Ireland that requires due process whether you like it or not.

Yes, but justice should be swifter.

micosoft wrote: »

6. An apology from government regarding their atrocious behaviour of the last 10 years then should be given by ALL the parties that have been in power in that period.
So Fine Gael are responsible for the past 10 years when Fianna Fail was in power for the first 8.5 years of your makey uppy time period?

I clearly include Fianna Fail in this as well. Weren't they in power in the last 10 years!

micosoft wrote: »

7. Unrealistic employers then should be tackled: they should be told to treat their employees fairly, train them properly, not have so much power to dismiss them, and to tell them stop blaming colleges when they don't want to train them themselves (colleges qualify graduates but organisations have specific practices that in no way colleges could train them because these are organisation specific). Employers who are very dismissive of colleges and their employees and give no training should not be given the airtime they get and they should not be taken seriously and have so much power.
http://www.employmentrights.ie

Yes, and politicians should point the people towards this. Employers of a poor nature flout much of these rights.

micosoft wrote: »

8. Banks should be encouraged to lend to and invest in viable businesses and ideas but reckless lending should be discouraged in a similar way.
http://www.creditreview.ie/default.aspx
http://www.microfinanceireland.ie/

9. Politicians should not treat people like statistics and realise that their actions hurt people.
Given the level of representation and the fact every TD has a clinic on a weekly basis in this country I think they know full well the impact of the cuts. Unfortunately they live in the Adult world where difficult decisions have to be made.

Cutbacks that create unemployment while some of our elite wine and dine on obscene salaries in WRONG WRONG WRONG. And that's what is happening here.

micosoft wrote: »

10. Any anti-business damaging practices (even if they are considered in the name of health, etc.) should be abandoned as they create further unemployment, bureaucracy and barriers to success.
So it's OK to kill employees but not be "unrealistic" as per 7 Interesting set of priorities.

Too much nanny state here and it harms business!

mdebets

Call me cynical, but I think these resignations from FG (and the ones most likely to come in the future) are a ploy by FG to save some Dail seats in the next elections.
FG knows that they'll most likely be hammered in the next election and will loose many of their seats. So a "independent FG" candidate might have better chances in his constituency, because he is not (in the eyes of some of the people) not responsible for all the policies implemented by FG.

mdebets

Palmach wrote: »

Whipping tends to be a feature of countries that were in the British Empire by and large. Scandinavian countries don't use whips afaik and neither does Holland. The reason being is they use consensus and the parties tend to be ideological so politicians in a left wing party tend to be on the same wavelength. Our politicians are often vision-free parish pump county councilors whose goal is to hang onto their seat for as along as possible.

When there is a revolt in the UK, which also has the whip system, voting against your own party doesn't get you cast into the wilderness like it does here. Witness the recent vote on Syria.

If you don't have the whip it meas the cabinet would have to sit and clearly debate the issue with politicians and win them over. Again a lot easier in a list system rather than the dog eat dog parish oriented system we have here.

The difference between the whip and non whip (or whip to a lesser extend) countries is not so much that politicians in the non whip countries have to have more consensus, but how the Members of Parliament are elected.

In countries with a whip system, you mostly have directly elected candidates,
while in non whip countries you have list elections, where the people vote for a party and the party gets a number of Members of Parliament based on their percentages.

The natural thing for a Member of Parliament is, to do his best, to get re-elected.
To achieve that in a list system, they must make sure they follow the party policy as good as possible, to get a good place on the list for the next election, and to make sure that this policy is liked by the voters, so that the party gets enough votes.
A candidate that is elected directly needs to be much more focused on his constituency, to deliver something for them, even if it is bad for the overall party or the country. There are than only two ways for the government to be able to function properly. Either a strict whip system or to have to long debates with the Members of Parliament and additional goddies (the hospital in your constituency won't be closed if you vote for this bill) for the members constituency added to proposed laws.