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

Forming the next Irish Government - policies and personalities

14546485051103

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    dont need dail time this week for that, just a phone



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,935 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    To be fair to Northern Ireland, the consistent pattern of the UK and Stormont governments over the last 100 years in restricting one-off housing compared to the South pay dividends at times like this. The people of Northern Ireland can thank the British for that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,954 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    And there we have it from Calleary in response to criticism of the state and semi state response - 'lessons will be learnt'.
    I.E. please ignore what we didn't do, we will invest in infrastructure etc etc. in other words.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,027 ✭✭✭pureza


    seriously,what is the point of this post bar a childish needling of a SF poster?

    NI is riddled with one off housing just like the rest of the island

    Btw NiE is owned by the ESB

    We have reconnected 5 times as many as NIE with Irelands own man power so far in the same timeframe as them

    But essentially the same company is responsible for the lines north and south



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭Caquas


    In his IT column today, Fintan quotes Leo as evidence that the Super Juniors are unconstitutional.

    Simply put - Super Juniors would be unconstitutional if they were Members of the Government in all but name (and not just because they breach the numerical limit of 15).

    In their defence, two distinctions are made. First, Super Juniors don't have voting rights. But that point is moot because, as Leo says, there haven't been votes at Cabinet for decades. Secondly, they don't have authority over a Department of State. But they do have Ministerial responsibilities formally assigned to them and, as Leo also said, they even bring their own formal proposals to Cabinet for Government approval.

    Fintan misses a key issue from a Constitutional perspective - Junior Ministers are appointed by the Taoiseach without the need for Dáil approval. The Taoiseach could even appoint one of his own Seanad nominees. So much for the Government being responsible to the Dáil.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2025/01/28/an-unfortunate-incident-of-photobombing-at-the-aras-highlights-a-big-problem-for-our-democracy/



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,048 ✭✭✭Yeah Right


    Question dodged, I'll take that as a "yes" then.

    If you keep doing what you're doing, you get the same results you always get.

    We haven't kept "doing what we've been doing" and we have been getting different results. The number of female candidates and number of female TDs have almost doubled since the early 90s. This was done through improving access to the realm of politics, showing women that yes, they can play along with the boys and proving to girls that they're just as smart as the boys…….not by installing some underqualified quota-fillers who weren't actually able to do the job. Having quotas and promoting less qualified people based on their demographic qualities is a step backwards, and does more harm than good in the long run, IMO.

    If you take positive action measures to address the uneven playing field, you give everyone the chance to compete equally.

    You're not talking about everyone competing equally, though. You're talking about giving one sex more favourable treatment than another. That's not fair, that's sexist.

    The end goal is to make it fair and even for everyone. You can't level the playing field by tilting it so it favours one side over the other, even if it has been traditionally tilted the other way. That's just more of the same unfairness. You make it fair by giving everyone the same access to the field in the first place, then letting them live/die on how well they play on that field.

    Appointing people to important roles, roles that will directly affect the lives of millions of people, based on what's between their legs instead of what's between their ears is straight out of idiocracy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭aero2k


    I heard Valerie Cox on the radio the other day lamenting the low number of women in the cabinet. 3/15 is 20%, however there are only 25% women TDs in the Dáil, so that's only a difference of one minister to make the cabinet reflect the Dáil gender balance. 36% of the GE candidates were women, so the electorate obviously thought the male candidates were better overall, for whatever reason.

    Editing to add that only the Soc Dems and SF have more than 26% women TD's. Labour only has 18% women.

    I'm not in favour of quotas generally for the reasons you outline. Thankfully, many of the DEI initiatives which focus on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity are starting to fall out of favour in the US - hopefully that trend reaches these shores.

    Post edited by aero2k on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,413 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    The outcome of this legal action should be interesting. The unnecessary creation of 3 extra junior ministers and increasing the number that can sit at cabinet was an indication of a ruling class in power for too long.

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/sinn-fein-td-launches-high-court-action-against-unconstitutional-attendance-of-junior-ministers-at-cabinet/a1293015748.html



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭Caquas


    Was this inspired by Fintan or was it the other way round? Read my post above.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    We have a record number of TDs, so it would be reasonable to have more ministers, and more voices in cabinet.

    Now, super Juniors might be going too far, but there would be a point if the Gov needed the support of another party, but a bunch of rural independents?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    The Taoiseach has gone down the country to take his bashing https://x.com/johncookeradio/status/1884231471701037311

    Post edited by expectationlost on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭Caquas


    There is a good case to be made that we need, say, 20 Cabinet Ministers, each supported by one or two Ministers of State with a few Ministers of State for coordinating major issues across Departments e.g. Climate, EU.

    So let's have a referendum, and not this specious method of "getting around" the Constitution (as Leo put it).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,935 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Gimmick politics again from the usual suspects.

    The country is recovering from a storm and Sinn Fein are throwing hissy fits about who has a job.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Quite.

    And while we are at it, restrict the number of TDs to 160, number of Cabinet Ministers to 20, and number of Juniors to 20.

    That would mean 25% of TDs would be ministers, or 50% of Gov TDs would be ministers.

    Would that be wise?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,935 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The number of TDs should be capped at 200, then your system works.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,500 ✭✭✭howiya


    I'd go one further. Abolish junior ministers.

    Twenty full ministers is plenty.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,818 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    A constitutional cap on the number of ministers is absurd, and I don't remotely see the point of it. However, good luck passing a referendum to that effect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,669 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    They are taking a legal review of this - I don't see how this has any impact on how the country recovers from a storm. If there's no issue with the current setup, then that's all good. If there is, then he's done some good.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,550 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost




  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,818 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I think the Government should be able to decide how many Ministers they need to run the country effectively.

    It is particularly perverse to have automatically increasing numbers of TDs with a cap on Ministers.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,082 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Nothing was dodged. You're trying to ignore the basic facts that gender quotas have been effective in bringing out signficant improvements, but we still have a long way to go.

    The new legisation came in in 2012, to apply from 2016 onwards. In the 2016 election, women's representation in the Dáil increased from 15.1% to 22.2%. This further improved in the 2020 election, reaching 22.5% of TDs. In the current Dáil, there are 37 women TDs, representing 23.3% of the total 160 seats. This is the highest number of women TDs in the history of the Irish parliament.

    And you want to take away these quotas for some reason, rather than continuing to work towards a gender balanced Dáil?

    Positive action measures in employment have been around since the 1980s, with mixed successes. They aren't some imported 'woke DEI' initiative. They were around long before that and they'll be around long after that.

    It is not discrimination to level the playing field and ensure equal access for all, regardless of gender, age, disability and more.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,954 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You can't attract parish pumpers unless you have trinkets to hand out.
    Not being glib but that is what is going on here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭Caquas


    Reducing the number of TDs would require another referendum. It could be combined with a referendum to increase the number of Ministers but they are really separate issues (even though Ministers have to be TDs in practice - Senator Pippa was a rare exception).

    160 TDs would be enough to conduct Dáil business but, in addition to disrupting Dáil business by shouting and roaring, TDs must attend to limitless demands from their constituents for personal attention. A Government Minister usually has enough clout and secretarial support to satisfy these local demands (only Stephen Donnelly fell short this time) but Junior Ministers are under constant pressure, especially in rural areas.

    We had our chance to radically reduce the number of redundant politicians in Leinster House in 2013 but we believed the promises of reform. It took forty years before the Supreme Court forced reform of the University seats this year.

    And no referendum can abolish the Irish people's attachment to clientelism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,012 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    This hypothetical referendum would need to create constitutional guaranteed powers for local government, significantly increased from now, so clientelism can be kicked down to councillors.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,413 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    The 2011 to 2016 government survived with 15 junior ministers.

    They didn't even attempt to increase it by one or two junior ministers this time around, they had to increase it by 3. And they think the public won't notice.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 91,427 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭Hibernicis


    I haven't seen any good reasons for an increase in the number of ministers above current max of 15. It is more than enough. We already have a number of Departments whose names make them sound like are a product of political correctness and inclusivity. That carryon should be handled at Junior Minister level.

    The issue for junior Ministers attending Cabinet needs to be dealt with once and for all.

    Regarding the number TDs, this should be maxed somewhere between 100 and 140. I'd opt for 120 on the basis that if it's good enough for New Zealand, we could probable manage. 174 is ridiculous and serves no purpose.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,027 ✭✭✭pureza


    But what is that lady not having made available to her ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,942 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    He's trying to create a storm in that teacup the way he's swirling it..



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,818 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Why are we comparing ourselves to NZ instead of Finland, Norway, Switzerland or Denmark who all have similar populations to us and have a similar or higher number of members of Parliament? It can not be allowed to continue to grow with the population, but I see no reason to reduce it - all you are doing is reducing the pool of TDs to pick a cabinet from. They also all have more Ministers than we do.

    I would be curious as to which Ministry in Ireland you think is a "product of political correctness and inclusivity".



Advertisement