A new form of government.

silent gav

Please excuse the title of this thread it should read FORM and not FORUM!!
Ok so here goes. Been thinking of different forms of government which might improve what we currently have. I'm no sort of political expert or anything but anyway one of the ideas I had was as follows.

Firstly the government would be made up of a prime minister and a number of ministers only. These ministers would have to have a relevant qualification and experience to their ministries.

The prime minister and ministers would run for election as a team. The prime minister would not need any qualifications but needs to have suitably qualified ministers to run on his/her ticket and support his/her policies. These could be made up of a single party, group of independents or coalition of parties.

The election would be a nationwide vote for prime minister with all constituencies voting on the same candidates.

Three candidates and their teams would be elected. One Prime minister and two opposition leaders.

The government would have complete control over day to day running of the country but major legislation would need a majority of the house to approve it. If the government did not get a majority the issue would have to be put to a referendum.
Should the government lose more than a given amount of referendums an election would be called.

I know this needs a lot more thinking out but I think it's not a bad idea. Love to know what you all think

johnnyskeleton

A problem is that by definition the opposition will have legislative majority at all times. So unless only the government party can propose legislation, the opposition parties can lose an election and have complete legislative power.

Why only 3 parties, why not 4 or 5?

Who decides what is or is not suitably qualified? Who arbitrates in the event of a margin call e.g. foreign experience/recognition of third level courses?

In mh opinion, it would be more beneficial to reform the electorate and educate people to be more civil minded than it would be to make structural changes to the parliamentary/executive system.

oscarBravo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In mh opinion, it would be more beneficial to reform the electorate and educate people to be more civil minded than it would be to make structural changes to the parliamentary/executive system.

Amen to that.

silent gav

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A problem is that by definition the opposition will have legislative majority at all times. So unless only the government party can propose legislation, the opposition parties can lose an election and have complete legislative power.

sorry to clarify this all legislation would need government support plus over 1/4 of opposition support making an over all majority. If this is not achieved an opposition party may,but does not have to, call a referendum.If no referendum is called the legislation is passed. legislation can not be passed solely on opposition support. the opposition can propose legislation and if it receives a majority supporting it but not government support a referendum may be called. each opposition party however would be limited to a set number of times it can call a referendum per year in such circumstances. the public can also call for a referendum directly if a set number of petitions are made. i would envisage the use of technology in both referendum voting and petition gathering in order to increase public participation. if a government loses a set number of referendum a general election would be called. the public would also have the option to petition a general election

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why only 3 parties, why not 4 or 5?

i think 3 would be adequate but would be open to more.i would envisage a much stronger local government possibly with directly elected mayors to give minority interests a voice in their local area and remove government from local politics.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Who decides what is or is not suitably qualified? Who arbitrates in the event of a margin call e.g. foreign experience/recognition of third level courses?

this would have to be voted upon by the people at the time of setting up the new system.i would envisage each ministry having a set number of qualifying third level degrees and a set amount of experience above a certain level in qualifying job sectors. this in time would lead to people with an interest in state politics to follow particular education and job routes leading to more competition for these positions and hopefully a better level of candidate

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In mh opinion, it would be more beneficial to reform the electorate and educate people to be more civil minded than it would be to make structural changes to the parliamentary/executive system.

i think with the increased level of direct democracy in this system along with a civic education program the electorate could be much more engaged in politics.it would also end the crazy situation of school teachers and farmers handling our countries finances, health systems, laws etc

johnnyskeleton

I wonder would the same goals be more easily achieved if in the current system eab voting block were allowed to refer a certain number of bills to referendum each year?

But youre still left with a slightly unworkable system. What does it say about us that we want X party in power but also want to be able to vote against them from time to time by way of rererendum?

I mean, surely the punishment for passung hnpopular legislation should be that a partg is never voted for again? The fact that a sinificant portion of the irish electorate will still vote FF says it all really!

Annasopra

I'm really against this idea of qualifications for Ministries or TDs. It's elitism. Nothing less. Nothing more. It's basically a power grab for wealthy people and those who had the privelege of being educated in third level.

Nye Bevan left school at 14.

In setting up the UK NHS Bevan proved to be the best ever Minister for Health in the UK.

Manach

Elitism, being rather a good thing - for it does seem to foster an element of grasping the larger and holistic picture of the body politic instead of there being a concentration on the immediate election. For instance, reaching back to the Classics, instead of having a pension waiting for the retiring politicans they had a committee of elders that weighted up the politicians performance so as to assess if it met a stand. If not, a variety of punishments could have been assigned.

dlouth15

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I mean, surely the punishment for passung hnpopular legislation should be that a partg is never voted for again? The fact that a sinificant portion of the irish electorate will still vote FF says it all really!

In fairness these people could be voting for FF TDs for their constituency work rather than their legislative and government forming role.

Annasopra

Manach wrote: »

Elitism, being rather a good thing -

Nah - insisting on educational qualifications is just a power grab for the wealthy and educated. In any case just because a person has a particular qualification doesnt mean they would be suitable politicians. There are plenty of qualified doctors that should never be health minister etc etc.
This bunkum of qualifications improving the caliber of politicians is just that bunkum. We have a junior minister at the moment who dropped out of third level college but is highly competent at his job. Its absolute and utter nonsense that only graduates could become Ministers or TDs. There are many people who have never graduated from third level who would make highly competent ministers.

silent gav

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I mean, surely the punishment for passung hnpopular legislation should be that a partg is never voted for again? The fact that a sinificant portion of the irish electorate will still vote FF says it all really!

dlouth15 wrote: »

In fairness these people could be voting for FF TDs for their constituency work rather than their legislative and government forming role.

Exactly. The system has to move the countries governance away from local politics for this exact reason. someone can be a very good local politician but a useless state one.

Also what is wrong with having accountability during a term. As we have all seen it is very easy to promise the moon and the stars during an election and then not deliver. knowing that they will be accountable during their term might make their programs more realistic.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm really against this idea of qualifications for Ministries or TDs. It's elitism. Nothing less. Nothing more. It's basically a power grab for wealthy people and those who had the privelege of being educated in third level.

Nye Bevan left school at 14.

In setting up the UK NHS Bevan proved to be the best ever Minister for Health in the UK.

What a load of nonsense. Of course there needs to be an education system that is truly open to all but the government should be like any large company.
If you had a company would you hire a school teacher to do your accounts or a social worker in charge of your legal department. it's crazy.
i would also point out that under the system you would not need these qualifications to run for prime minister or local government
Of course there will be exceptions of people who have done well with no experience but would you trust risking your company on this being the case. if not why should we risk our country
I also do not have a third level qualification.

Manach

Anti-elitism seems so quaint, a throwback to the days when there was a modicum of ideology substance instead of today's progressive hot steam of indignation & bluster.

Given the prevalence of MOOCs, distance learning and grant systems for disadvantaged students, for there not to be some form of actual qualification for the role one is overseeing in a government is merely incompetence as well as providing a means of being intellectually overwhelmed by the inhouse experts that make up the vested interests of the state bureaucracy.

Annasopra

silent gav wrote: »

the government should be like any large company.

Why?

ArmaniJeanss

What if I wished to stand for election with a team of ministers without such 3rd level qualifications, and all opinions polls suggested that I had a chance of winning.
Seems very undemocratic that you would disallow my team to stand?

hmmm

Why not adopt the US system, where the people who get elected are not the people appointed to run the government departments? The idea that some teacher from Ballydehob can get elected because he's good at getting medical cards for constituents, and can then be put in charge of a multi billion dollar operation, is ludicrous.

silent gav

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why?

Well because running a country and running a company are quite similar.
A companies aim is to increase profits while a countries is to increase GDP
Both need to balance their budgets while keeping shareholders/citizens happy and give their employees a good work environment.i could go into more detail but i think both the similarities and differences are quite apparent

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

What if I wished to stand for election with a team of ministers without such 3rd level qualifications, and all opinions polls suggested that I had a chance of winning.
Seems very undemocratic that you would disallow my team to stand?

I think this is a moot point. The person who wished to stand, in order to be elected would need a large proportion of the electorate to agree with his/her program for government. If they had such a popular program, i find it highly unlikely that they could not find suitably qualified ministers who shared their views.
Also every democracy has rules. i.e. the need to be 21 to run for a seat at present. Is this not undemocratic if a large number of the electorate wanted a 20 year old to be elected?
Also as i have said before i would envisage a much stronger local government which would be open to all.

hmmm wrote: »

Why not adopt the US system, where the people who get elected are not the people appointed to run the government departments? The idea that some teacher from Ballydehob can get elected because he's good at getting medical cards for constituents, and can then be put in charge of a multi billion dollar operation, is ludicrous.

I completely agree with the last part of your point but would it not be better to know who the ministers would be before the election rather them having them lumped on us afterwards with no say in the matter?

Another advantage of this system would be that if there were a particularly good and popular minister within a not so popular government they could easily join a new team of like minded people for the next election leading hopefully in time to the best people being in each job