Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
  • 14-07-2017 5:56pm
    #1
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭


    ...more speaking time for their own deputies.

    What are peoples' views on this? I saw it debated in Vinnie B (what are we going to do without him?) and TWIP a couple of weeks ago, it's coming up again this week.

    I have to say I'd have a very simple rebuttal to the argument about it being unfair on TDs of the major parties - if they're bound to a party whip, then regardless of their own views, they won't be able to do anything at all to act on them once the proposal in question comes to the floor. If they're all going to vote with the leadership on an issue, then the leadership can speak for all of them during the debate.

    So I'd advocate a very simple criteria - any bill or proposal which is going to be subject to a whipped vote by any particular grouping in the Dail, should only get one time slot of equal length from each such grouping. Of course, TDs should be free to share time within that. If, on the other hand, a party has committed to offering a free vote on a particular issue, then that issue should be subject to a much longer and more wide-ranging debate with far more voices, and proportional speaking time for each party. But any party which is operating a three line whip for a particular vote should be considered to have voluntarily abdicated its entitlement to be treated as a group of individuals - if there aren't individual votes, then there shouldn't be individual voices.

    Anyone else have a view?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    For Reals
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.


  • Options
    #3
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    It's a bit silly to say that government back-being TDs should lose out as they are going to vote with the government.

    There are only two ways to vote on a proposal, either for or against it.

    If we follow the "back-being TDs should lose out as they are going to vote with the government" line, we therefore only need two speakers on any proposal, one, the Taoiseach, to give a "for" view, and, two, the leader of the opposition to give an "against" view; after that TDs get to choose which of these they will follow through the voting lobby. :-)


  • Options
    #4
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    View wrote: »
    It's a bit silly to say that government back-being TDs should lose out as they are going to vote with the government.

    There are only two ways to vote on a proposal, either for or against it.

    If we follow the "back-being TDs should lose out as they are going to vote with the government" line, we therefore only need two speakers on any proposal, one, the Taoiseach, to give a "for" view, and, two, the leader of the opposition to give an "against" view; after that TDs get to choose which of these they will follow through the voting lobby. :-)

    you want to get rid of political parties in the Dail?


  • Options
    #5
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Every citizen is entitled to have their representative treated equally in the Dail, regardless of whips or not.

    Ministers have a special place in the Constitution because of their jobs and have an accountability to the Dail requiring that they speak more often. Other than that, speaking time should be equal.


  • Options
    #6
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Every citizen is entitled to have their representative treated equally in the Dail, regardless of whips or not.

    Ministers have a special place in the Constitution because of their jobs and have an accountability to the Dail requiring that they speak more often. Other than that, speaking time should be equal.
    so you all have people from the minister party standing up and repeating each other because the minister/senior party member told them to just like we've seen in the Judicial Commission debate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    View wrote: »
    It's a bit silly to say that government back-being TDs should lose out as they are going to vote with the government.

    There are only two ways to vote on a proposal, either for or against it.

    If we follow the "back-being TDs should lose out as they are going to vote with the government" line, we therefore only need two speakers on any proposal, one, the Taoiseach, to give a "for" view, and, two, the leader of the opposition to give an "against" view; after that TDs get to choose which of these they will follow through the voting lobby. :-)

    Not at all, I am contending that if they are compelled to vote in a given way, then the only person who need speak is the person compelling them. If they are offered a free vote and still happen to vote with the party line, that's obviously a totally different matter.


  • Options
    #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Nobody is compelled to vote in any way.

    The whipping system advises and threatens TDs with action in response to voting against the party lines, but that is not compulsion. They are still free to vote against the whip.

    We have evidence of this as people have voted against the whips' recommendations in many cases, and some indeed have been expelled from parties as a result.

    I'd rather we had a system where whips were not needed but our antagonistic immature parties refuse to even entertain the idea of not baiting and bating each other at every opportunity.


  • Options
    #9
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Nobody is compelled to vote in any way.

    The whipping system advises and threatens TDs with action in response to voting against the party lines, but that is not compulsion. They are still free to vote against the whip.

    We have evidence of this as people have voted against the whips' recommendations in many cases, and some indeed have been expelled from parties as a result.

    I'd rather we had a system where whips were not needed but our antagonistic immature parties refuse to even entertain the idea of not baiting and bating each other at every opportunity.
    I don't think you can call it "many cases".


  • Options
    #10
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    expectationlost wrote: »
    so you all have people from the minister party standing up and repeating each other because the minister/senior party member told them to just like we've seen in the Judicial Commission debate.

    This whole idea is an attempt to disenfranchise large segments of the population.


  • Options
    #11
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    blanch152 wrote: »
    This whole idea is an attempt to disenfranchise large segments of the population.
    what idea?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Jasper79
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Jasper79


    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.


  • Options
    #13
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #14
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    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.


  • Options
    #15
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    expectationlost wrote: »
    what idea?

    The OP's idea.


  • Options
    #16
    Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo


    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.


  • Options
    #17
    Jasper79
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Jasper79


    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.


  • Options
    #18
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    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?


  • Options
    #19
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


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


  • Options
    #20
    For Reals
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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...


  • Options
    #21
    Jasper79
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Jasper79


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo


    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.


  • Options
    #23
    For Reals
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.


  • Options
    #24
    Jasper79
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Jasper79


    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.


  • Options
    #25
    For Reals
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.


  • Options
    #26
    Jasper79
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Jasper79


    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.


  • Options
    #27
    For Reals
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    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.


  • Options
    #28
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    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


  • Options
    #29
    Jasper79
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭Jasper79


    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?


  • Options
    #30
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    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.


Advertisement