Dail Suspended - Debate and Voting

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He applied rules to ML McD which he did not apply to government TDs.

I'm not actually convinced that this is the case. I distinctly heard him berate Enda Kenny in the past week for not addressing his remarks to the chair.

The difference is, Enda ignored him (which he shouldn't have, but one of my major problems with Dáil Éireann is the fact that much of the time it's indistinguishable from a primary school classroom) whereas Mary Lou turned to him and asked "are you serious?"

Back to the primary school analogy: if, in school, my class was acting up and the teacher told us to quiet down, we might get away with ignoring the instruction, but to turn to the teacher and incredulously demand to know what the f*ck his problem was would guarantee a trip to the principal.

So yes: he does, in fact, apply the same rules to opposition and government TDs. The difference is that Mary Lou seems to feel that she has a right to object to those rules, whereas others pretend they haven't heard. Neither is admirable behaviour, but one of them is begging for - and received - a smackdown.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

The difference is, Enda ignored him (which he shouldn't have, but one of my major problems with Dáil Éireann is the fact that much of the time it's indistinguishable from a primary school classroom) whereas Mary Lou turned to him and asked "are you serious?"

Back to the primary school analogy: if, in school, my class was acting up and the teacher told us to quiet down, we might get away with ignoring the instruction, but to turn to the teacher and incredulously demand to know what the f*ck his problem was would guarantee a trip to the principal.

You seem to be on the one hand complaining that the Dail is like a primary school classroom, yet at the same time berating McDonald for being unwilling to accept it as such.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You seem to be on the one hand complaining that the Dail is like a primary school classroom, yet at the same time berating McDonald for being unwilling to accept it as such.

Right now, I'm debating whether the double standards exist to the extent claimed.

But if Mary Lou wants the Dáil to be less like a primary school, I'd respectfully suggest that turning to the speaker of the house and demanding to know if he's serious when he points out the rules to her is probably not the most productive approach she could possibly have taken.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right now, I'm debating whether the double standards exist to the extent claimed.

But if Mary Lou wants the Dáil to be less like a primary school, I'd respectfully suggest that turning to the speaker of the house and demanding to know if he's serious when he points out the rules to her is probably not the most productive approach she could possibly have taken.

So given that you think the Dail is like a primary school class, you now seem to be saying the best thing to do is just accept it is and don't cause any fuss.
What should she do, blow raspberries?

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So given that you think the Dail is like a primary school class, you now seem to be saying the best thing to do is just accept it is and don't cause any fuss.
What should she do, blow raspberries?

With as much respect as I can muster, I'm not going to bother debating this with you, because your ability to invoke logic seems to stop at "defend SF at any cost!"

For the avoidance of doubt: the best thing to do is for everyone - everyone - who holds elected office to grow the f*ck up and learn to debate in a civilised manner, including learning the rules and standing orders of the House and abiding by them.

If that translates for you into me believing that ML should blow raspberries... well, like I said, I'm not interested in debating the topic further with you. You can have the last word if you like, and you can tell yourself that you won the argument. Whatever makes you feel like you've successfully defended The Party today.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

With as much respect as I can muster, I'm not going to bother debating this with you, because your ability to invoke logic seems to stop at "defend SF at any cost!"

Ah yes, define the opponent as always wrong, therefore, ya know, he's wrong, because, like I said, he's always wrong.
What is it with you SF haters always coming out with the exact same "always defend SF" line? Does that constitute a rebuttal of anything in your head before you trot it out yet again?
By the way, I think you are incapable of using logic. So there.
Remember, you said I was getting the last word, so no comebacks now!

PS: you talk an awful lot for a guy who "isn't interested".

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not actually convinced that this is the case. I distinctly heard him berate Enda Kenny in the past week for not addressing his remarks to the chair.

In the specific session I'm referring to, which was the budget session, he very definitely did not. I'll try and find the relevant parts of the video tomorrow.

The difference is, Enda ignored him (which he shouldn't have, but one of my major problems with Dáil Éireann is the fact that much of the time it's indistinguishable from a primary school classroom) whereas Mary Lou turned to him and asked "are you serious?"

Back to the primary school analogy: if, in school, my class was acting up and the teacher told us to quiet down, we might get away with ignoring the instruction, but to turn to the teacher and incredulously demand to know what the f*ck his problem was would guarantee a trip to the principal.

And do you think it's right, that one cannot call out a double standard without bringing more sh!te upon themselves? Don't see the value in that myself.

So yes: he does, in fact, apply the same rules to opposition and government TDs.

He may have in the case you're referring to, he most certainly did not on budget day.

The difference is that Mary Lou seems to feel that she has a right to object to those rules

She wasn't objecting to the rules, merely to the uneven application of them.

whereas others pretend they haven't heard. Neither is admirable behaviour, but one of them is begging for - and received - a smackdown.

Agree neither is admirable behavior, absolutely disagree that calling out a double standard should be in any way discouraged. Double standards have no place anywhere in a decent society, be it in parliament or indeed in any other context.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And do you think it's right, that one cannot call out a double standard without bringing more sh!te upon themselves? Don't see the value in that myself.

If you think the best, most appropriate, most effective way to draw attention to what you perceive as an uneven application of the rules is to throw a public hissy fit, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you think the best, most appropriate, most effective way to draw attention to what you perceive as an uneven application of the rules is to throw a public hissy fit, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

If there's no other realistic option open (and many have been tried by various opposition TDs during this Dail term) I still don't think it's a good idea, but nobody has suggested what else she could have done about this. I'm sure complaining to a government whipped majority committee would have produced results :rolleyes:

EDIT: Richard Boyd Barrett attempted to call this out in a reasonable manner by sticking his hand up and waiting, and calling a point of order. He was ejected from the chamber for this. Again, what exactly are they supposed to do? Complaining to a committee which is whipped by the same party as the man they're there to complain about is clearly not a satisfactory option.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2011/05/20110510rbb.mp3

conorh91

If Government domineered the Courts the way it domineers Parliament, it would be interesting to see the reaction from Government cheerleaders. I bet an excuse would be found, nevertheless.

I suspect the lack of acknowledgement of the problem stems from the poltiical affiliation of the opposition TDs in question.

The SOs of Dail Eireann are a joke, as is the traditional deference of the Ceann Comnhairle to the Government. The main function of the standing orders and the Ceann Comhairle appears to support the Government -- because after all, they exist at the whim of Government.

I would guesstimate that 90% of people are unaware of the meaning of the word Government.

The extreme majority of people in this country appear equally unaware that the Government and the Parliament are as constitutionally discrete as Government and the Courts. In the popular conscience, the doctrine of the separation of powers is presumed only to protect the courts.

Thus the doctrine, insofar as it exists, has been wantonly ignored to the detriment of the powers of Parliament, and to the benefit of traditional political parties.

I may disagree with the individual TDs concerned, but I'm glad to see some of the newly-elected FG TDs like Eoghan Murphy acknowledge this problem, too.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Care to offer an opinion?

So we are agreed, it is only an opinion whether or not the CC applied double standards. Otherwise you wouldn't be asking me for mine?

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

So we are agreed, it is only an opinion whether or not the CC applied double standards. Otherwise you wouldn't be asking me for mine?

Not at all, the question (which you have yet again failed to answer) was whether people believed he acted as appropriate for his office. If people believe that double standards are acceptable, that's a perfectly valid opinion, albeit one I cannot understand and oppose 100%. As far as I'm concerned, applying the rules differently to different TDs is, *fact*, a double standard. If anyone disagrees with that, they're going to have to work out how to justify that disagreement in the context of the dictionary definition I posted above.

The coalition would be proud of you as Ceann Comhairle, the way you manage to repeatedly quote questions I ask without actually offering an answer to them in your replies

FreudianSlippers

conorh91 wrote: »

If Government domineered the Courts the way it domineers Parliament, it would be interesting to see the reaction from Government cheerleaders. I bet an excuse would be found, nevertheless.

This Government has been anti-democratic from the start in trying to grab as much power as possible. I can't believe they had anyone drinking the Kool-aid on the Seanad abolition.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all, the question (which you have yet again failed to answer) was whether people believed he acted as appropriate for his office. If people believe that double standards are acceptable, that's a perfectly valid opinion, albeit one I cannot understand and oppose 100%. As far as I'm concerned, applying the rules differently to different TDs is, *fact*, a double standard. If anyone disagrees with that, they're going to have to work out how to justify that disagreement in the context of the dictionary definition I posted above.

The coalition would be proud of you as Ceann Comhairle, the way you manage to repeatedly quote questions I ask without actually offering an answer to them in your replies

That's based on the predication that you take it as fact that the rules were applied differently. What you fail to grasp is that the rules were applied proportionately; it was the strop thrown my MLMcD after the application of the rule that got her thrown out. There is no double standard there, and I'd be of that opinion if it was any CC and any TD in those positions.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all, the question (which you have yet again failed to answer) was whether people believed he acted as appropriate for his office. If people believe that double standards are acceptable, that's a perfectly valid opinion, albeit one I cannot understand and oppose 100%. As far as I'm concerned, applying the rules differently to different TDs is, *fact*, a double standard. If anyone disagrees with that, they're going to have to work out how to justify that disagreement in the context of the dictionary definition I posted above.

The coalition would be proud of you as Ceann Comhairle, the way you manage to repeatedly quote questions I ask without actually offering an answer to them in your replies

It is a fact that MLMD acted undemocratically as she rejected a Dail vote and refused to leave the Dail. She realised very quickly overnight the mistake she made and backed down.

It is your opinion that the CC applied double standards and that can only be an opinion. Whether or not I agree with your opinion is immaterial as if I did agree, that would only mean that we have a shared opinion and doesn't change the opinions into fact.

You are entitled to hold your opinion of the CC and others are entitled to hold their opinion if it differs to yours but they are only opinions. Of course the weight of opinion is important to public debate but apart from getting support from SF supporters on boards, there is no weight of public opinion to back up your contention that the CC applied double standards.

conorh91

Godge wrote: »

It is a fact that MLMD acted undemocratically as she rejected a Dail vote and refused to leave the Dail.

Although I believe MLMD was showboating, the above is opinion dressed up as fact.

The idea that there is democratic legitimacy every time either or both Houses of Oireachtas makes a decision cannot be fact. Legitimacy is a purely subjective construct. It is reliant upon the personally-held opinions of the electorate. It cannot be measured objectively, like manure content or noise intensity, which seem to be the major outputs of Dáil Eireann.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's based on the predication that you take it as fact that the rules were applied differently. What you fail to grasp is that the rules were applied proportionately;

What does this actually mean? It is a fact, backed up by video evidence and by the Dail record, that the Ceann Comhairle has on several occasions called out rule breaking from the opposition which was ignored from the government in identical circumstances and in the same Dail session.

What exactly do you mean by "they were applied proportionately"? As far as I'm concerned the minute one side is shown even a smidgeon more lenience than the other during a debate (in the Dail or out), the chair of that debate is guilty of bias. I don't think many would find that view unreasonable?

it was the strop thrown my MLMcD after the application of the rule that got her thrown out. There is no double standard there, and I'd be of that opinion if it was any CC and any TD in those positions.

I agree, but again I have to ask how one is supposed to deal with this matter? Did you listen to the clip I posted of Richard Boyd Barrett calling out an almost identical instance of double standards very politely and patiently, and still being ejected from the chamber?

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

It is a fact that MLMD acted undemocratically as she rejected a Dail vote and refused to leave the Dail. She realised very quickly overnight the mistake she made and backed down.

It is your opinion that the CC applied double standards and that can only be an opinion. Whether or not I agree with your opinion is immaterial as if I did agree, that would only mean that we have a shared opinion and doesn't change the opinions into fact.

The Ceann Comhairle's behavior meets the dictionary definition of a double standard. That is not an opinion, that is a fact as found in evidence, the evidence in this case being video evidence and the Dail record.

You are entitled to hold your opinion of the CC and others are entitled to hold their opinion if it differs to yours but they are only opinions. Of course the weight of opinion is important to public debate but apart from getting support from SF supporters on boards, there is no weight of public opinion to back up your contention that the CC applied double standards.

See above.