FF and FG want to cut speaking time for independents and small parties to allow...

they are going back to having the Dail and committees on at the same time supposedly giving that time to back benchers, rather then 'reducing time smaller parties get' http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/despite-public-anger-its-too-late-to-tidy-up-our-dishevelled-tds-ceann-comhairle-35983093.html

a compromise has been reached whereby nobody will lose time but the larger parties will have extra speaking opportunities.
Fine Gael, Fianna F and Sinn F are to get more time during debates, meaning the D may have to sit longer. "So without anybody losing any time and having regard to proportionality, the bigger party blocks will get more time," he confirmed.

but this is reducing time smaller parties get compared to larger parties.

foxtrot101 wrote: »

The Independent Alliance, who just so happen to be propping up FG, aren't going to countenance this for a second. It's not going to happen. Just a bit of silly season nonsense.

The Independent Alliance don't really need it at the moment, Halligan has used "bachbencher" speaking time a couple of times but otherwise they have access to gov.

I don't understand why you would call silly season story, the new Taoiseach mentioned it (disingenuously) in his first Dail speech.

anyway the chief gov whip says it been "agreed" http://www.donegaldaily.com/2017/07/16/44-pieces-of-legislation-expected-to-pass-before-end-of-july/

although the whip often says it been agreed when he means pushed through. not sure if its gone through the admin commmittees and it would need a standing order motion too.

Ronaldinho

I would lean towards FG myself but I think this idea stinks.

I might not agree with very many of the policies of the marginal parties/independents but I think at least they can go some way towards keeping FG/FF 'honest'.

blanch152 wrote:

FG and FF should get most of the speaking time because the people (you know the electorate) have voted to give them the most speaking time through electing their TDs.

Why so basically every member can parrot what has been said by the previous FF/FG speaker?

blanch152 wrote: »

If people vote for the "civil war see-saw" as you call it (is that an abusive term and forbidden?), then what is wrong with that?

Are you one of those who believes democracy is only right if it gives the right result?

I can only post my opinion. I believe FF/FG are not doing a good job. I believe the 'go to' of all apologist supporters is 'no other option'. So it's important we hear all sides equally.
In regard to 'see-saw' it refers to one in, the other out and vice versa since the inception of the state, (civil war era). I can't see any issue there, feel free to flag.

blanch152 wrote: »

Would you agree that Senator Ronan Mullen should get half of the time for any debate on abortion in the Oireachtas as he is the only pro-life Senator or TD?

Should a speaker for ISIS get equal time? Or the Church of Scientology get time as well? These are minority viewpoints but different. If you just want different views to be heard, why not ignore the electorate completely and bring in whoever holds a different view to the debate.

FG and FF should get most of the speaking time because the people (you know the electorate) have voted to give them the most speaking time through electing their TDs.

If there's an argument, we should hear all elected sides on it, right?

I disagree. As explained. We don't require several TD's coming out with the same line. That's a waste of everybody's time.

foxtrot101

The Independent Alliance, who just so happen to be propping up FG, aren't going to countenance this for a second. It's not going to happen. Just a bit of silly season nonsense.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

Maybe they've something important to say? The whole suggestion smacks of protectionism, the big two griping tighter on the throat of our democracy, like they need to. I'd suggest different views get equal time. Worse case scenario some Indy says something and it adds nothing. Best case scenario some Indy points out an issue of national importance the big two are trying to ignore. Well worth it. The only argument for this move is administrative, but not the goal, censorship is the goal, IMO.

Would you agree that Senator Ronan Mullen should get half of the time for any debate on abortion in the Oireachtas as he is the only pro-life Senator or TD?

Should a speaker for ISIS get equal time? Or the Church of Scientology get time as well? These are minority viewpoints but different. If you just want different views to be heard, why not ignore the electorate completely and bring in whoever holds a different view to the debate.

FG and FF should get most of the speaking time because the people (you know the electorate) have voted to give them the most speaking time through electing their TDs.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

.
People might hear something they like and help rid us of the civil war see-saw.

If people vote for the "civil war see-saw" as you call it (is that an abusive term and forbidden?), then what is wrong with that?

Are you one of those who believes democracy is only right if it gives the right result?

Thankfully we've people making statements not on the FF/FG agenda. For smaller parties and individuals the Dail is the best place for them to speak out/have a voice. That's very important for a healthy democracy. If you're a large party with money and media behind you, I can see people having the platform of the Dail as a problem.

Jasper79 wrote:

by that fact then what part have oppostion TDs in it ? Why need to discuss in the dail?

Imagine the sh*t the government would get up to if none of what they tried to introduce was discussed in the Dail.

Jasper79 wrote: »

by that fact then what part have oppostion TDs in it ? Why need to discuss in the dail?

that question has long been asked, the Dail is still pretty irrelevant even now gov just deals with FF in the back room.

expectationlost wrote: »

government minister pass legisation, government TDs have little part in it, even at committee

by that fact then what part have oppostion TDs in it ? Why need to discuss in the dail?

Jasper79 wrote: »

When these TDS are they one's that are passing legislation ( through majority) then yes their voices are the more important ones.

government minister pass legisation, government TDs have little part in it, even at committee

Jasper79 wrote: »

Indeed, but when they hold a handful of votes compared to dozens who are voting the opposite way then what's to gain from them speaking equally as long.

Maybe they've something important to say? The whole suggestion smacks of protectionism, the big two griping tighter on the throat of our democracy, like they need to. I'd suggest different views get equal time. Worse case scenario some Indy says something and it adds nothing. Best case scenario some Indy points out an issue of national importance the big two are trying to ignore. Well worth it. The only argument for this move is administrative, but not the goal, censorship is the goal, IMO.

For Reals wrote: »

If they are telling us about it, that's important. Equally as important as those pointing out any flaws.

Indeed, but when they hold a handful of votes compared to dozens who are voting the opposite way then what's to gain from them speaking equally as long.

Jasper79 wrote: »

When these TDS are they one's that are passing legislation ( through majority) then yes their voices are the more important ones.

If they are telling us about it, that's important. Equally as important as those pointing out any flaws.

For Reals wrote: »

The point is, do we need several TD's repeating the same party line taking away from other voices?
We should reduce that kind of speaking time IMO.
People might hear something they like and help rid us of the civil war see-saw.

When these TDS are they one's that are passing legislation ( through majority) then yes their voices are the more important ones.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Jasper79 wrote: »

And they will have their say, just shouldn't get as much time as they currently do . They are looking to reduce speaking time not eliminate it.

The point is, do we need several TD's repeating the same party line taking away from other voices?
We should reduce that kind of speaking time IMO.
People might hear something they like and help rid us of the civil war see-saw.

Jasper79 wrote: »

The Government are inefficient and not very productive with the time they have.

Why should time be wasted listening to AAA, GP or SD majority which is not really probably listened to in fairness.

Speaking time, I think should be weighted with the seats held ie. % of the population they represent.

I don't agree sorry.

Power is already weighted so heavily towards the cabinet as things stand now. Wanting to concentrate that power even further, by making any opposition voices quieter would be bad for Irish democracy.

Having a rule where only the two biggest boys in the class get the chance to speak is not how a multi party parliamentary democracy should be run. The two parties combined don't even represent half of the people who care enough to vote in Dail elections anyway.

FF are tacitly supporting FG at this moment in time, it would be a stretch to call them effective opposition.
The thought of Varadkar and Martin having a Punch and Judy show back and forth with no other voices allowed into the discussion is frankly a horrible thought.

For Reals wrote: »

Because Garda Corruption, Reilly's clinics, NAMA, piss poor performance in general.

If they need the support of the Healy-Rae's, they'll get to spout their nonsense anyway. Be nice to have some critics sound off at the government, if only for optics sure...

And they will have their say, just shouldn't get as much time as they currently do . They are looking to reduce speaking time not eliminate it.

Jasper79 wrote: »

The Government are inefficient and not very productive with the time they have.

Why should time be wasted listening to AAA, GP or SD majority which is not really probably listened to in fairness.

Speaking time, I think should be weighted with the seats held ie. % of the population they represent.

Because Garda Corruption, Reilly's clinics, NAMA, piss poor performance in general.

If they need the support of the Healy-Rae's, they'll get to spout their nonsense anyway. Be nice to have some critics sound off at the government, if only for optics sure...

The Bishop Basher

Another nail in the coffin of our "democracy"..

Jasper79 wrote:

Why should time be wasted listening to AAA, GP or SD majority which is not really probably listened to in fairness.

The SD not listened too? Who do you think was more effective in holding the previous government to account Catherine Murphy or some nodding donkey back bencher?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The OP is right here. The Whip System is enforced to such a strong degree that a party line is the only opinion that you will ever get.

I think you are being silly if you think a person/party who represents 5% or 10% of the electorate should get less speaking time. FF and FG themselves only have electoral support in the mid 20% (even less if you take the electorate as a whole).

It looks like an attempted power grab on talking time to me, and keeping any alternative to the FF/FG power dynamic in check.

The Government are inefficient and not very productive with the time they have.

Why should time be wasted listening to AAA, GP or SD majority which is not really probably listened to in fairness.

Speaking time, I think should be weighted with the seats held ie. % of the population they represent.

Jasper79 wrote: »

I agree with it 100%

Why should a person /party who represent <5 or 10% of the electorate, get equal time.

The idea, similar to gender quotas to me, are both anti democratic and should be done away with.

The OP is right here. The Whip System is enforced to such a strong degree that a party line is the only opinion that you will ever get.

I think you are being silly if you think a person/party who represents 5% or 10% of the electorate should get less speaking time. FF and FG themselves only have electoral support in the mid 20% (even less if you take the electorate as a whole).

It looks like an attempted power grab on talking time to me, and keeping any alternative to the FF/FG power dynamic in check.

blanch152

expectationlost wrote: »

what idea?

The OP's idea.

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

And less time listening to the rubbish that Danny Healy Rae talks about. So a good thing.

Less time hearing Catherine Murphy or other credible Independents highlighting uncomfortable truths. A bad thing.

jimmycrackcorm

For Reals wrote:

I see the point in the more support, the more speaking time, but that dooms us to the civil war two tag team getting in the most spin. I think each major party, if under the whip, need no more than one representative speaker on any given issue.

And less time listening to the rubbish that Danny Healy Rae talks about. So a good thing.

I agree with it 100%

Why should a person /party who represent <5 or 10% of the electorate, get equal time.

The idea, similar to gender quotas to me, are both anti democratic and should be done away with.