Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Directly Elected Mayor

124

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭ kuang1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    fair points, but if we had a democratically elected mayor, would that not make our political system more democratic?

    Sure. But that's not nearly enough of a reason for me to vote yes on this.
    I would vote yes had I been convinced that actual change will be effected.

    This has not happened in this instance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    kuang1 wrote: »
    Sure. But that's not nearly enough of a reason for me to vote yes on this.
    I would vote yes had I been convinced that actual change will be effected.

    This has not happened in this instance.

    i guess it depends on what you define as change, and how does one guarantee change?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭ kuang1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    i guess it depends on what you define as change, and how does one guarantee change?

    Simply put, you can't guarantee it.
    But you could clearly outline the mayor's role and who he might "have access to". i.e. Will he have quarterly sit downs with the minister for x, y or z to discuss a, b & c.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    kuang1 wrote: »
    Simply put, you can't guarantee it.
    But you could clearly outline the mayor's role and who he might "have access to". i.e. Will he have quarterly sit downs with the minister for x, y or z to discuss a, b & c.

    completely agree, change can never be guaranteed, but as others have said, by changing nothing, you more than likely guarantee no change, this would be a significant change in approach, it 'might' just succeed


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭ kuang1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    completely agree, change can never be guaranteed, but as others have said, by changing nothing, you more than likely guarantee no change, this would be a significant change in approach, it 'might' just succeed

    Yes I completely accept that perspective.

    I guess it comes down to personal preference for where we all would prefer our political resources distributed.
    I'd rather keep our powder dry on this one, in the hope that we can get things right with our candidates in the next GE.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    kuang1 wrote: »
    Yes I completely accept that perspective.

    I guess it comes down to personal preference for where we all would prefer our political resources distributed.
    I'd rather keep our powder dry on this one, in the hope that we can get things right with our candidates in the next GE.

    the next ge will be interesting, but i suspect not much will really change, something is going wrong with western political systems, i personally believe we have allowed these systems to be de-powered, effectively creating political systems that cant really change much


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,027 ✭✭✭ fricatus


    If you disagree with this proposal, fine, vote against it, but if your only reason for opposing it is the cost, then you really need to stand back and look at that cost in the overall context of public spending. It is absolute peanuts when compared to literally anything else that we spend money on, such as the National Broadband Plan.

    The money will be coming from a Local Government Reform fund according to Simon Coveney the other day, so we don't have to cut back here or raise property taxes, rates, etc. Even if we did have to fund it ourselves, then assuming the post costs half a million a year, that's less than the cost of a pint per capita. And for that, you get someone whose job it is to promote Waterford, understand our concerns, and represent those concerns at national level, in a way that is not happening now.

    What have we got to lose?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,032 ✭✭✭ hardybuck


    I think the funding aspect has been cleared up.

    Now it's a case of do you want a CEO like Michael Walsh to retain his current scope to do things, or would you prefer a politician, probably one of or local Councillors, to assume a number of his responsibilities.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭ kuang1


    fricatus wrote: »
    ... whose job it is to promote Waterford, understand our concerns, and represent those concerns at national level, in a way that is not happening now.

    Your post is sound except for this part. And it's the crux of it for me.

    How exactly are our concerns going to be represented at a National level?
    I haven't seen this answered clearly at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,027 ✭✭✭ fricatus


    hardybuck wrote: »
    I think the funding aspect has been cleared up.

    Now it's a case of do you want a CEO like Michael Walsh to retain his current scope to do things, or would you prefer a politician, probably one of or local Councillors, to assume a number of his responsibilities.

    If that politician is chosen by all of us (not just by one area or through a pact), then I'm in favour of it. I don't think we'll elect a dope, or a monkey, or whatever you're having yourself, contrary to what some people think.

    Michael Walsh does a great job, but the next guy or gal mightn't, so a democratic counter-balance is worthwhile. Also, a city manager is not a public figure who can stand up and complain about stuff on TV or at some national conference, in the way that a mayor with an individual democratic mandate can.

    Disappointing BTW to see that this plebiscite will be the last of the four counts - apparently the boxes won't be opened until Monday morning!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,027 ✭✭✭ fricatus


    kuang1 wrote: »
    How exactly are our concerns going to be represented at a National level?
    I haven't seen this answered clearly at all.

    A directly elected mayor, with a mandate from the electorate, will have much more pull when it comes to demanding meetings with senior civil servants on the issues that matter to us. If they get stonewalled, they can go on TV and local radio complaining that democracy is being ignored. They can address business and union conferences, make statements.

    I could go on, but you get the idea! These are all things that mayors do elsewhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,032 ✭✭✭ hardybuck


    fricatus wrote: »
    If that politician is chosen by all of us (not just by one area or through a pact), then I'm in favour of it. I don't think we'll elect a dope, or a monkey, or whatever you're having yourself, contrary to what some people think.

    Michael Walsh does a great job, but the next guy or gal mightn't, so a democratic counter-balance is worthwhile. Also, a city manager is not a public figure who can stand up and complain about stuff on TV or at some national conference, in the way that a mayor with an individual democratic mandate can.

    Disappointing BTW to see that this plebiscite will be the last of the four counts - apparently the boxes won't be opened until Monday morning!

    In fairness to the selection process for public appointments, they've now extremely rigorous, especially for senior roles where they need to be assessed by occupational psychologists and thoroughly analysed.

    If someone goes for a Mayoral role a person can be voted in without any of this. We have people who vote on party lines because of whatever side of the Civil War their great grandparents were on FFS.

    The Council should work now because there is a regional spread of candidates, and there is a spread of candidates based on the Waterford public's political leanings. If you're a Sinn Fein supporter in Kilcohan chances are you'll have one of your people on the Council. If you're a FG person in the area you'll probably get on of your people in - they're all equal and everyone feels represented to an extent.

    What'll have to happen here is one candidate to come along, to be more skilled than the excellent CEO, and one which everyone in Waterford county can be happy with, regardless of their political views. No pressure!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,027 ✭✭✭ fricatus


    I wonder if they’ll be able to get a sense of which way this is going as they open the boxes. The actual count isn’t until Monday IIRC.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,086 ✭✭✭✭ Harry Palmr


    The chit chat commentary in the media suggests Waterford says no and that in all three constituencies the reaction has been lukewarm at best.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭ friendlyfun


    Ultimately I think it its a pity that this could be defeated. Think it would be a great democratic exercise to elect a mayor.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭ kuang1


    fricatus wrote: »
    A directly elected mayor, with a mandate from the electorate, will have much more pull when it comes to demanding meetings with senior civil servants on the issues that matter to us. If they get stonewalled, they can go on TV and local radio complaining that democracy is being ignored. They can address business and union conferences, make statements.

    I could go on, but you get the idea! These are all things that mayors do elsewhere.

    No. You see, this cannot be known now.

    This is what you (and me for what it's worth) hope for. But would it come to pass?

    I don't think so. I think if we fast forward in time (and were we to vote yes on the mayor issue) we could have a new thread in Waterford boards about the ineffectiveness of our mayor.

    What I've just said is a supposition, as is your post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,086 ✭✭✭✭ Harry Palmr


    All boxes are opened and "tallies" say it's a bust for the proposal. If so no one can be shocked - they never sold it to the public with any conviction and the very basis of the role was never anything more than

    Vote for Mayor
    ?
    Profit


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,032 ✭✭✭ hardybuck


    All boxes are opened and "tallies" say it's a bust for the proposal. If so no one can be shocked - they never sold it to the public with any conviction and the very basis of the role was never anything more than

    Vote for Mayor
    ?
    Profit

    Ingrid Miley is reporting that it's too close to call at the moment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,086 ✭✭✭✭ Harry Palmr




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,130 ✭✭✭ Christy Browne


    https://twitter.com/dhurleyll/status/1132976450083147776?s=21

    And we’re sitting on the sideline yet again....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,500 ✭✭✭✭ Jamie2k9


    So No by 719 votes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,127 ✭✭✭ JohnC.


    It failed. 719 votes in it. 22437 to 21718


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,500 ✭✭✭✭ Jamie2k9


    Yes in Cork ahead by 200 with one final batch to be counted.

    Linerick yess by around 4,000.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,127 ✭✭✭ JohnC.


    Limerick have passed it. It’ll be interesting to see how it works out for those who have and those who have not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,511 ✭✭✭ Max Powers


    I was confident this would happen, reason being Cork and Limerick are booming and that transfers into positivity in general.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,086 ✭✭✭✭ Harry Palmr


    Cork passing by around 200+/- a few suggests they need to work on their "boom"


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,031 ✭✭✭ Gardner


    left behind again. give it about 5 years come the next local election and there will be a outcry from the city cllrs for a second vote when they see the benefits Cork and Limerick have achieved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,027 ✭✭✭ fricatus


    This is the worst of all outcomes really, if Cork join Limerick in voting yes, and with us confirmed as voting against. I fear we've shot ourselves in the foot. Here was a real chance to put ourselves identifiably in the big league of Irish cities and we've decided to stay put in Junior B :(

    Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong. Cork will vote for Roy Keane's dog, and Limerick will vote for someone with a plastic bag on his head, they'll be ridiculed, and we'll all go back to the old system. One can only hope.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,032 ✭✭✭ hardybuck


    fricatus wrote: »
    This is the worst of all outcomes really, if Cork join Limerick in voting yes, and with us confirmed as voting against. I fear we've shot ourselves in the foot. Here was a real chance to put ourselves identifiably in the big league of Irish cities and we've decided to stay put in Junior B :(

    Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong. Cork will vote for Roy Keane's dog, and Limerick will vote for someone with a plastic bag on his head, they'll be ridiculed, and we'll all go back to the old system. One can only hope.

    Michael Martin has described the plebiscite in Cork as a 'shambolic mess'.

    Here's another angle. Waterford, along with Galway and Dublin, can observe Limerick and possibly Cork to see how they get on with this.

    Galway, and maybe Dublin, will have their say on the matter. Should it be seen to be working Waterford could be asked again.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,511 ✭✭✭ Max Powers


    hardybuck wrote: »
    Michael Martin has described the plebiscite in Cork as a 'shambolic mess'.

    Here's another angle. Waterford, along with Galway and Dublin, can observe Limerick and possibly Cork to see how they get on with this.

    Galway, and maybe Dublin, will have their say on the matter. Should it be seen to be working Waterford could be asked again.

    True. At end of day, as it stands, this mayor was not going to suddenly change our fortunes, investment and jobs to cork/limerick levels so to say this will be the reason we will continue to be underfunded, resourced etc is ridiculous. See how it goes now and then maybe look at it again. I voted for it BTW.


Advertisement