How do we permanently reduce the number of politicans in Ireland?

garrettod

Hi,

Having posted a comment about reducing the numbers in a different thread, it got me thinking, how do we actually do this?

In my view, we've too many politicans, be it TDs, Senators or Councillors. The ratio of TDs to population here is far lower than it is in the UK, or quite a few other European counties.

I think if we could half the numbers, we'd :

Half the delays and procrastinating,

Half horsh1te, nonsense and scams,

Half the cost,

And make it a lot easier to keep the rest of them under the microscope.

By cleaning up our political system, making it more efficient and capable, we would then attract better people into it.

Do, what are peoples thoughts and how might we go about it?

At the moment, it seems to me that you'd have to rely on the politicans to implement the idea and that's never going to happen given it doesn't serve their own interests.

Salary Negotiator

Change the constitution.

banie01

Not without constitutional amendment as the ratio of TD to electorate is laid out there.

Bannasidhe

garrettod wrote: »

Hi,

Having posted a comment about reducing the numbers in a different thread, it got me thinking, how do we actually do this?

In my view, we've too many politicans, be it TDs, Senators or Councillors. The ratio of TDs to population here is far lower than it is in the UK, or quite a few other European counties.

I think if we could half the numbers, we'd :

Half the delays and procrastinating,

Half horsh1te, nonsense and scams,

Half the cost,

And make it a lot easier to keep the rest of them under the microscope.

By cleaning up our political system, making it more efficient and capable, we would then attract better people into it.

Do, what are peoples thoughts and how might we go about it?

At the moment, it seems to me that you'd have to rely on the politicans to implement the idea and that's never going to happen given it doesn't serve their own interests.

Referendum.

The formula is laid out in the Constitution.

antimatterx

Referendum. It's fixed in our constitution. According to it, we should have between 161 to 241 TD's. At the moment we have less than the minimum based on our population.

Gloomtastic!

You have to change the Constitution. Since it seems to be the government that controls the referendums then you have two chances of this happening, none and sfa!

Peatys

Less td's so less representative of the voters. Dictatorship is ok once it's you're views being dictated.

Dots1982

We had a referendum on the existence of the Seanad a few years ago. Our electorate decided to vote to keep it.

garrettod

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

You have to change the Constitution. Since it seems to be the government that controls the referendums then you have two chances of this happening, none and sfa!

That's how I see it, the politicans aren't going to propose something that's not in their own best interest.

garrettod

Dots1982 wrote: »

We had a referendum on the existence of the Seanad a few years ago. Our electorate decided to vote to keep it.

Sure,

But that's not the same thing - I'm not saying get rid of it, or the Dail, I just want to cut the numbers as we've too many wasters and dossiers who do nothing for us, but cost is a fortune (both directly and indirectly)

garrettod

Peatys wrote: »

Less td's so less representative of the voters. Dictatorship is ok once it's you're views being dictated.

I'm not suggesting a dictatorship,

Everyone still gets a vote

Anyone eligible to stand as a TD, Councillor etc still does so. The good ones get elected, but we also get rid of some of the ejits and sheisters

Dots1982

garrettod wrote: »

Sure,

But that's not the same thing - I'm not saying get rid of it, or the Dail, I just want to cut the numbers as we've too many wasters and dossiers who do nothing for us, but cost is a fortune (both directly and indirectly)

Well that’s being answered by a couple of different posters. The decision to keep the Seanad (which I found shocking) suggests there is little public will for what you propose.

garrettod

Dots1982 wrote: »

Well that’s being answered by a couple of different posters. The decision to keep the Seanad (which I found shocking) suggests there is little public will for what you propose.

I strongly disagree.

Getting rid of something is very different to improving it, making it more effective, efficient, fit for purpose etc.

Dots1982

garrettod wrote: »

I strongly disagree.

Getting rid of something is very different to improving it, making it more effective, efficient, fit for purpose etc.

Make an argument why reducing the amount of TDS improves the value of the national parliament. If it was me I’d compare our population to our amount of elected reps and see if it’s in or out of line proportionally with other countries.

garrettod

Dots1982 wrote: »

. If it was me I’d compare our population to our amount of elected reps and see if it’s in or out of line proportionally with other countries.

Second paragraph of my opening post :-)

kowloon

Dots1982 wrote: »

We had a referendum on the existence of the Seanad a few years ago. Our electorate decided to vote to keep it.

We could keep it as it was or get rid of it and hand more power to the dail, neither being what people actually wanted. The real solution was an elected* second house of government that wasn't just a pension generator for those who didn't make it into the Dail.

*as opposed to the archaic system they have now.

is_that_so

garrettod wrote: »

That's how I see it, the politicans aren't going to propose something that's not in their own best interest.

They can propose it, but we wouldn't vote for it.

dxhound2005

It was done already, when the local positions were abolished. Down from around 1,600 politicians in the country to around 1,100 now. And the people refused the chance to abolish the Senate. If they were all done away with, how much better off would we be?

For such cushy numbers, only 516 put themselves up for 160 jobs. And in the local elections you had a better than 50% chance of getting to be a County Councillor. Another cushy number. Why are there not tens of thousands looking to get such handy jobs?

IngazZagni

The people voted for more politicians in the Seanad referendum. I couldn’t believe it at the time. Ah but the bleedin gubberment wants it so it must be a bad thing is the feeling I got at the time.

is_that_so

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It was done already, when the local positions were abolished. Down from around 1,600 politicians in the country to around 1,100 now. And the people refused the chance to abolish the Senate. If they were all done away with, how much better off would we be?

For such cushy numbers, only 516 put themselves up for 160 jobs. And in the local elections you had a better than 50% chance of getting to be a County Councillor. Another cushy number. Why are there not tens of thousands looking to get such handy jobs?

Seanad campaign was all about the money and never did explain what better things we'd get instead of it.

Dots1982

garrettod wrote: »

I strongly disagree.

Getting rid of something is very different to improving it, making it more effective, efficient, fit for purpose etc.

garrettod wrote: »

Second paragraph of my opening post :-)

Here’s the rest of the data - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislatures_by_number_of_members

If I felt strongly enough I would open a petition online and write to TDs, newspapers, Relevant state bodies outlining the arguments for a reduced amount of TDs and see where that takes you.

I don’t know what number of petition signatures you’d need to force the matter to be brought up in the dail or out to a referendum.

I personally think the vote to keep the Seanad is a large blow to your argument but you disagree and that’s fine.

dxhound2005

Reduced numbers and a much higher salary would attract better talent. Like those leaders of private industry who would have to take a 95% cut in their salaries to become a TD now.

I am thinking of the likes of the top brass in betting companies. They have the know how to separate people from large amounts of their hard earned. Whereas the politicians we have could not even collect a small charge for water from the people.

Yurt2

So the latest galaxy brain idea is we're trying to get executives from one of the scummiest industries outside of pushing heroin to children to run the country. Boards truly has it all.

God bless freedom of speech. You wouldn't have any idea what unsaid crackpot ideas do be rattling around some Irish people's skulls without this forum.

It's frightening, I could be sitting next to this person in a dentist's waiting room or a train, and I wouldn't have a clue. Although the dribble on his chin might give it away.

Fireball81

Peatys wrote: »

Less td's so less representative of the voters. Dictatorship is ok once it's you're views being dictated.

Wrong, look at the population of New Zealand, similar to here but they only have 120 MPs (TDs).

Geuze

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It was done already, when the local positions were abolished. Down from around 1,600 politicians in the country to around 1,100 now.

Yes, cut by hundreds to 949.

We used to have 114 councils, now we have 31.

Massive cut in the number of local governments.

All 75 town councils abolished.

All 5 borough councils abolished.

114 - 80 = 34.

Then two Tipps merged, WD city and county merged, LK city and county merged.

So now just 31 local authorities.

dxhound2005

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, cut by hundreds to 949.

We used to have 114 councils, now we have 31.

Massive cut in the number of local governments.

All 75 town councils abolished.

All 5 borough councils abolished.

114 - 80 = 34.

Then two Tipps merged, WD city and county merged, LK city and county merged.

So now just 31 local authorities.

And in the Local Elections last year, 1,979 candidates put themselves forward for those 949 jobs. I think the wages for those jobs should be increased significantly to attract more and better talent. It's worth a shot, and it works in other areas of employment.

Edgware

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It was done already, when the local positions were abolished. Down from around 1,600 politicians in the country to around 1,100 now. And the people refused the chance to abolish the Senate. If they were all done away with, how much better off would we be?

For such cushy numbers, only 516 put themselves up for 160 jobs. And in the local elections you had a better than 50% chance of getting to be a County Councillor. Another cushy number. Why are there not tens of thousands looking to get such handy jobs?

But if we abolished the Senate where would such talent as Noel Rock go?

Edgware

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It was done already, when the local positions were abolished. Down from around 1,600 politicians in the country to around 1,100 now. And the people refused the chance to abolish the Senate. If they were all done away with, how much better off would we be?

For such cushy numbers, only 516 put themselves up for 160 jobs. And in the local elections you had a better than 50% chance of getting to be a County Councillor. Another cushy number. Why are there not tens of thousands looking to get such handy jobs?

But if we abolished the Senate where would such talent as Noel Rock go?

Pronto63

Dots1982 wrote: »

Well that’s being answered by a couple of different posters. The decision to keep the Seanad (which I found shocking) suggests there is little public will for what you propose.

I voted to keep the Seanad as I think we need an upper house but I think the idea of reducing the number of TD’s is a great one.

As well as the cost factor if we had less TDs they could be kept busy and they could concentrate on running the country and not fixing potholes outside someone’s house.

threeball

garrettod wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a dictatorship,

Everyone still gets a vote

Anyone eligible to stand as a TD, Councillor etc still does so. The good ones get elected, but we also get rid of some of the ejits and sheisters

The eejits and shysters are normally the first past the post. We could end up with a Dail with nothing but them.

L1011

There was a significant reduction in the number of Councillors in 2014 as it stands. TD numbers are set proportional to population. Seanad numbers have not grown for 80 years.

Your idea that the UK has less is likely ignoring all lower levels of local government in the UK.

tdf7187

garrettod wrote: »

Hi,

Having posted a comment about reducing the numbers in a different thread, it got me thinking, how do we actually do this?

In my view, we've too many politicans, be it TDs, Senators or Councillors. The ratio of TDs to population here is far lower than it is in the UK, or quite a few other European counties.

I think if we could half the numbers, we'd :

Half the delays and procrastinating,

Half horsh1te, nonsense and scams,

Half the cost,

And make it a lot easier to keep the rest of them under the microscope.

By cleaning up our political system, making it more efficient and capable, we would then attract better people into it.

Do, what are peoples thoughts and how might we go about it?

At the moment, it seems to me that you'd have to rely on the politicans to implement the idea and that's never going to happen given it doesn't serve their own interests.

I don't favour your project. Sounds weird and borderline fascistic - perhaps you are p.issed off that the right wing lost votes?

As for comparing us to the UK, apart from them being a much larger country that us, the idea that we should follow the UK on politics is...well, nah.

dxhound2005

Pronto63 wrote: »

I voted to keep the Seanad as I think we need an upper house but I think the idea of reducing the number of TD’s is a great one.

As well as the cost factor if we had less TDs they could be kept busy and they could concentrate on running the country and not fixing potholes outside someone’s house.

Depending on population density, a TD could have a wide geographical area to cater for. Four TD's were elected for the so called Sligo Leitrim constituency in 2016. It was actually Sligo Leitrim, South Donegal, and West Cavan. That's a lot of roads and a lot of potholes. How many TD's do you think would suffice for that territory?

The boundaries were redrawn for the election this year, as they are whenever population numbers require.

Dots1982

Pronto63 wrote: »

I voted to keep the Seanad as I think we need an upper house but I think the idea of reducing the number of TD’s is a great one.

Can you provide an example to me of anything the Seanad has done of meaning within the past year?

dxhound2005

Dots1982 wrote: »

Can you provide an example to me of anything the Seanad has done of meaning within the past year?

In bicameral systems the Upper House usually cannot step on the toes of the Lower House. Normally because it is not put in place by universal franchise. So don't expect it to initiate legislation or produce anything else of "meaning".

An upper house is usually different from the lower house in at least one of the following respects (though they vary among jurisdictions):

Powers:

In a parliamentary system, it often has much less power than the lower house. Therefore, in certain countries the Upper House
votes on only limited legislative matters, such as constitutional amendments,
cannot initiate most kinds of legislation, especially those pertaining to supply/money,
cannot vote a motion of no confidence against the government (or such an act is much less common), while the lower house always can.

L1011

There has actually been occasional useful change initiated from the Seanad. However, I voted to get rid of it and people we conned with the idea of "vote no for reform!" when no reform was ever going to happen.

garrettod

threeball wrote: »

The eejits and shysters are normally the first past the post. We could end up with a Dail with nothing but them.

Funny, I actually think it would help reduce the number that we currently have.

Perhaps more importantly, it would help keep the next generation of the "entitled" out of the Dail, because there would be less seats up for grabs, so people would have to impress to get elected, rather than just have a certain secondname.