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

Peter Mathews TD resigns from Fine Gael

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    As an example of an extremely poor usage of the whip system in politics, from a recent book which dealt in part with Tony Blair's government, it describe how he so dominated the party via this system that even the cabinet meetings were reduced to mere update sessions (instead of proper debating sessions) and this directly to his rush to the Iraq war, dismissing the need for legal justification and pushing through to military action.
    Whilst Mr. Kenny is unlikely to invade anyone in the short term, it would be nice if there were a mechanism to allow deviation from party monoculture.


  • #33
    Palmach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭Palmach


    Manach wrote: »
    As an example of an extremely poor usage of the whip system in politics, from a recent book which dealt in part with Tony Blair's government, it describe how he so dominated the party via this system that even the cabinet meetings were reduced to mere update sessions (instead of proper debating sessions) and this directly to his rush to the Iraq war, dismissing the need for legal justification and pushing through to military action.
    Whilst Mr. Kenny is unlikely to invade anyone in the short term, it would be nice if there were a mechanism to allow deviation from party monoculture.

    The current system suits the likes of Kenny. There is little external debate. He avoids any public discussion and gets the TDs whipped through the lobbies.


  • #34
    PRAF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    Palmach wrote: »
    The whip system is barely used in many other European countries and in contrast to the absurd suggestions of some that it is a recipe for indecision these countries actually do just fine.

    So do you advocate banning the current whip system or just curtailing it? Also, which countries do you have in mind when you say they barely use any whip system at all?

    The danger of having no whip system in Ireland, IMO anyway, is that backbenchers would be even more vulnerable to lobbyists. Given the strength of certain lobby groups in Ireland as well as our past track record in terms of parochial politics and even political corruption, it could well be a disaster.

    Sometimes govts need to make unpopular decisions. As such, a whip system of some kind is a necessary evil.


  • #35
    Palmach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭Palmach


    PRAF wrote: »
    So do you advocate banning the current whip system or just curtailing it? Also, which countries do you have in mind when you say they barely use any whip system at all?

    The danger of having no whip system in Ireland, IMO anyway, is that backbenchers would be even more vulnerable to lobbyists. Given the strength of certain lobby groups in Ireland as well as our past track record in terms of parochial politics and even political corruption, it could well be a disaster.

    Sometimes govts need to make unpopular decisions. As such, a whip system of some kind is a necessary evil.

    Whipping tends to be a feature of countries that were in the British Empire by and large. Scandinavian countries don't use whips afaik and neither does Holland. The reason being is they use consensus and the parties tend to be ideological so politicians in a left wing party tend to be on the same wavelength. Our politicians are often vision-free parish pump county councilors whose goal is to hang onto their seat for as along as possible.

    When there is a revolt in the UK, which also has the whip system, voting against your own party doesn't get you cast into the wilderness like it does here. Witness the recent vote on Syria.

    If you don't have the whip it meas the cabinet would have to sit and clearly debate the issue with politicians and win them over. Again a lot easier in a list system rather than the dog eat dog parish oriented system we have here.


  • #36
    PRAF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    Palmach wrote: »
    Whipping tends to be a feature of countries that were in the British Empire by and large. Scandinavian countries don't use whips afaik and neither does Holland. The reason being is they use consensus and the parties tend to be ideological so politicians in a left wing party tend to be on the same wavelength. Our politicians are often vision-free parish pump county councilors whose goal is to hang onto their seat for as along as possible.

    When there is a revolt in the UK, which also has the whip system, voting against your own party doesn't get you cast into the wilderness like it does here. Witness the recent vote on Syria.

    If you don't have the whip it meas the cabinet would have to sit and clearly debate the issue with politicians and win them over. Again a lot easier in a list system rather than the dog eat dog parish oriented system we have here.

    Unfortunately none of the political parties are advocating any great changes to the whip system. Hopefully someone brings it up in the constitutional convention..


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    PRAF wrote: »
    Unfortunately none of the political parties are advocating any great changes to the whip system. Hopefully someone brings it up in the constitutional convention..

    It's not a constitutional issue, it derives from the parties' internal rules.


  • #38
    PRAF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    It's not a constitutional issue, it derives from the parties' internal rules.

    Correct. Unless the parties volunteer to relax the whip system, or unless all of the backbench fodder from across party lines rebel against it, it is probably here to stay.

    However I think in Germany they have either legislative or constitutional safeguards to prevent abuses of the whip system. Might be something to consider here too


  • #39
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,379 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    I wasn't following Peter Matthews's personal pre-election pronouncements all that closely, but he was running for Fine Gael, a party that was signed up to the bailout deal. I don't think it's very reasonable to expect him to suddenly start coming on like Richard Boyd-Barrett...

    It is one thing signing up for the bailout deal (unfortunately, it was necessary after the banking fiasco) but it is another matter how that deal is implemented and negotiated. The problem in Ireland remains the same before and after the 2010 IMF/EU deal and the 2011 election: greed at the top is protected no matter what and nothing has been done to solve any of Ireland's problems because greed at the top is the problem.


  • #40
    micosoft
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭micosoft


    There is a reasoned argument by Leo Varadkar here for the Whip System.

    Please read it and play the arguments not the man.

    Fundamentally those arguing most forcefully against the Whip System are those who did not vote for the Government or agree with the Government. The belief is that if there was no whip that you could frustrate the other side with endless "checks" and "balances" to prevent them passing their programme of Government. The result would be permanent deadlock as can be seen in the US system. That's not "democracy" - that's the subversion of Democracy by minority interests.


  • #41
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,379 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    raymon wrote: »
    Builderplumber , can you outline your plan for our recovery and name a few TDs that you would admire.

    I suspect you may be reading the Sunday Independent too often.

    There is nobody in Irish politics at present I'd admire. They all tend to promise things will be better if they get into power and then turn around and do the same.

    A plan for recovery in this country requires true reform. First of all, politicians should be more in touch with their people. They should spend time in their constituencies and listen to people's problems and concerns and then do some of the following:

    1. Set up initiatives to create employment and local business.
    2. Ever notice that everything that needs to be done here takes forever. Cut out the red tape and allow things to move swiftly. Even paying tax online is a lengthy process and actually obviously disadvantageous to the government!
    3. Government's should be held accountable to their promises and if they fail the people, or do a poor job, should be removed.
    4. Budgets should be demystified and not used as a fear mechanism.
    5. Wrongdoers should be punished, money laundering laws should be stricter and those who robbed our banks made pay back what is owed, and then since the people ALREADY paid, the money should be spent giving back the people jobs or a topup on their income to compensate them for the inconvenience of the last 5 years.
    6. An apology from government regarding their atrocious behaviour of the last 10 years then should be given by ALL the parties that have been in power in that period.
    7. Unrealistic employers then should be tackled: they should be told to treat their employees fairly, train them properly, not have so much power to dismiss them, and to tell them stop blaming colleges when they don't want to train them themselves (colleges qualify graduates but organisations have specific practices that in no way colleges could train them because these are organisation specific). Employers who are very dismissive of colleges and their employees and give no training should not be given the airtime they get and they should not be taken seriously and have so much power.
    8. Banks should be encouraged to lend to and invest in viable businesses and ideas but reckless lending should be discouraged in a similar way.
    9. Politicians should not treat people like statistics and realise that their actions hurt people.
    10. Any anti-business damaging practices (even if they are considered in the name of health, etc.) should be abandoned as they create further unemployment, bureaucracy and barriers to success.

    That would be a start to recovery.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    micosoft
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭micosoft


    1. Set up initiatives to create employment and local business.
    http://www.enterpriseboards.ie/find_your_enterpirse_board.aspx

    2. Ever notice that everything that needs to be done here takes forever. Cut out the red tape and allow things to move swiftly. Even paying tax online is a lengthy process and actually obviously disadvantageous to the government!
    Globally speaking we are one of the best countries in the world to setup and run a business in
    Pretty much every other business person would disagree with you re Revenue Online. It's better then the UK and US systems.

    3. Government's should be held accountable to their promises and if they fail the people, or do a poor job, should be removed.
    It's called an election.

    4. Budgets should be demystified and not used as a fear mechanism.
    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/budget_2012.html
    Every Newspaper has a pullout on the topic.

    5. Wrongdoers should be punished, money laundering laws should be stricter and those who robbed our banks made pay back what is owed, and then since the people ALREADY paid, the money should be spent giving back the people jobs or a topup on their income to compensate them for the inconvenience of the last 5 years.
    We have a justice system in Ireland that requires due process whether you like it or not.

    6. An apology from government regarding their atrocious behaviour of the last 10 years then should be given by ALL the parties that have been in power in that period.
    So Fine Gael are responsible for the past 10 years when Fianna Fail was in power for the first 8.5 years of your makey uppy time period?

    7. Unrealistic employers then should be tackled: they should be told to treat their employees fairly, train them properly, not have so much power to dismiss them, and to tell them stop blaming colleges when they don't want to train them themselves (colleges qualify graduates but organisations have specific practices that in no way colleges could train them because these are organisation specific). Employers who are very dismissive of colleges and their employees and give no training should not be given the airtime they get and they should not be taken seriously and have so much power.
    http://www.employmentrights.ie

    8. Banks should be encouraged to lend to and invest in viable businesses and ideas but reckless lending should be discouraged in a similar way.
    http://www.creditreview.ie/default.aspx
    http://www.microfinanceireland.ie/

    9. Politicians should not treat people like statistics and realise that their actions hurt people.
    Given the level of representation and the fact every TD has a clinic on a weekly basis in this country I think they know full well the impact of the cuts. Unfortunately they live in the Adult world where difficult decisions have to be made.

    10. Any anti-business damaging practices (even if they are considered in the name of health, etc.) should be abandoned as they create further unemployment, bureaucracy and barriers to success.
    So it's OK to kill employees but not be "unrealistic" as per 7 Interesting set of priorities.

    The problem builderplumber is that you seem utterly unaware of what has been done and why it has been done in this state. Instead you think the people who run the state are fools and you just happen to have all the answers. It's an odd worldview that's not hugely constructive.


  • #43
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,000 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    PRAF wrote: »
    So do you advocate banning the current whip system or just curtailing it? Also, which countries do you have in mind when you say they barely use any whip system at all?

    The danger of having no whip system in Ireland, IMO anyway, is that backbenchers would be even more vulnerable to lobbyists. Given the strength of certain lobby groups in Ireland as well as our past track record in terms of parochial politics and even political corruption, it could well be a disaster.

    Sometimes govts need to make unpopular decisions. As such, a whip system of some kind is a necessary evil.

    The problem with discussion of any one single reform is that it tends to be reduced down to the level where the reform is falsely framed as a single, isolated reform rather than as part of a wider package.

    To your point on the vulnerability of TDs to lobbyists Id argue three points.

    One, lobbyists are already heavily influencing the TDs that control the whips. You control a half dozen of the right TDs, they control the whip, they control the other TDs you needed. Removing the whip actually makes it harder for lobbyists to influence political affairs because now they have to influence 80-90 TDs directly instead of a half dozen as under the current system. Much harder.

    Second, is it a problem if TDs are more responsive/representative of lobbyists? Those lobbyists in the main are voters - is it a problem that voters lobby their TDs? Voters are far less likely to have influence under the current whip system - your average voter might get access to their TD, they have practically no chance of getting a hearing with Enda Kenny. The large lobby groups do though.

    Third, there is already a solution for removing the power of lobbyists and I believe it is the only way to also remove the whip convincingly: secret voting by TDs. TDs can then vote without fear of either the whip or lobby groups.

    As for parochial politics - the current situation is serving parochial, parish pump politics. Changing it requires moving away from the whip system which is clearly not the solution.


  • #44
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,379 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    micosoft wrote: »
    1. Set up initiatives to create employment and local business.
    http://www.enterpriseboards.ie/find_your_enterpirse_board.aspx

    Yes, and our politicians should support these more!
    micosoft wrote: »
    2. Ever notice that everything that needs to be done here takes forever. Cut out the red tape and allow things to move swiftly. Even paying tax online is a lengthy process and actually obviously disadvantageous to the government!
    Globally speaking we are one of the best countries in the world to setup and run a business in
    Pretty much every other business person would

    Makes me wonder what the worst are like though I'm sure Germany, US, UK, Scandinavian countries are way ahead of us. North Korea ain't!!
    micosoft wrote: »
    disagree with you re Revenue Online. It's better then the UK and US systems.

    3. Government's should be held accountable to their promises and if they fail the people, or do a poor job, should be removed.
    It's called an election.

    Elections are a joke here like most places! They forget very quickly once they get into power. Also, the terms are too long. Give them a 2 year term and they may remember who elects them a little bit more!!
    micosoft wrote: »
    4. Budgets should be demystified and not used as a fear mechanism.
    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/budget_2012.html
    Every Newspaper has a pullout on the topic.

    5. Wrongdoers should be punished, money laundering laws should be stricter and those who robbed our banks made pay back what is owed, and then since the people ALREADY paid, the money should be spent giving back the people jobs or a topup on their income to compensate them for the inconvenience of the last 5 years.
    We have a justice system in Ireland that requires due process whether you like it or not.

    Yes, but justice should be swifter.
    micosoft wrote: »
    6. An apology from government regarding their atrocious behaviour of the last 10 years then should be given by ALL the parties that have been in power in that period.
    So Fine Gael are responsible for the past 10 years when Fianna Fail was in power for the first 8.5 years of your makey uppy time period?

    I clearly include Fianna Fail in this as well. Weren't they in power in the last 10 years!
    micosoft wrote: »
    7. Unrealistic employers then should be tackled: they should be told to treat their employees fairly, train them properly, not have so much power to dismiss them, and to tell them stop blaming colleges when they don't want to train them themselves (colleges qualify graduates but organisations have specific practices that in no way colleges could train them because these are organisation specific). Employers who are very dismissive of colleges and their employees and give no training should not be given the airtime they get and they should not be taken seriously and have so much power.
    http://www.employmentrights.ie

    Yes, and politicians should point the people towards this. Employers of a poor nature flout much of these rights.
    micosoft wrote: »
    8. Banks should be encouraged to lend to and invest in viable businesses and ideas but reckless lending should be discouraged in a similar way.
    http://www.creditreview.ie/default.aspx
    http://www.microfinanceireland.ie/

    9. Politicians should not treat people like statistics and realise that their actions hurt people.
    Given the level of representation and the fact every TD has a clinic on a weekly basis in this country I think they know full well the impact of the cuts. Unfortunately they live in the Adult world where difficult decisions have to be made.

    Cutbacks that create unemployment while some of our elite wine and dine on obscene salaries in WRONG WRONG WRONG. And that's what is happening here.
    micosoft wrote: »
    10. Any anti-business damaging practices (even if they are considered in the name of health, etc.) should be abandoned as they create further unemployment, bureaucracy and barriers to success.
    So it's OK to kill employees but not be "unrealistic" as per 7 Interesting set of priorities.

    Too much nanny state here and it harms business!


  • #45
    mdebets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭mdebets


    Call me cynical, but I think these resignations from FG (and the ones most likely to come in the future) are a ploy by FG to save some Dail seats in the next elections.
    FG knows that they'll most likely be hammered in the next election and will loose many of their seats. So a "independent FG" candidate might have better chances in his constituency, because he is not (in the eyes of some of the people) not responsible for all the policies implemented by FG.


  • #46
    mdebets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭mdebets


    Palmach wrote: »
    Whipping tends to be a feature of countries that were in the British Empire by and large. Scandinavian countries don't use whips afaik and neither does Holland. The reason being is they use consensus and the parties tend to be ideological so politicians in a left wing party tend to be on the same wavelength. Our politicians are often vision-free parish pump county councilors whose goal is to hang onto their seat for as along as possible.

    When there is a revolt in the UK, which also has the whip system, voting against your own party doesn't get you cast into the wilderness like it does here. Witness the recent vote on Syria.

    If you don't have the whip it meas the cabinet would have to sit and clearly debate the issue with politicians and win them over. Again a lot easier in a list system rather than the dog eat dog parish oriented system we have here.
    The difference between the whip and non whip (or whip to a lesser extend) countries is not so much that politicians in the non whip countries have to have more consensus, but how the Members of Parliament are elected.

    In countries with a whip system, you mostly have directly elected candidates,
    while in non whip countries you have list elections, where the people vote for a party and the party gets a number of Members of Parliament based on their percentages.

    The natural thing for a Member of Parliament is, to do his best, to get re-elected.
    To achieve that in a list system, they must make sure they follow the party policy as good as possible, to get a good place on the list for the next election, and to make sure that this policy is liked by the voters, so that the party gets enough votes.
    A candidate that is elected directly needs to be much more focused on his constituency, to deliver something for them, even if it is bad for the overall party or the country. There are than only two ways for the government to be able to function properly. Either a strict whip system or to have to long debates with the Members of Parliament and additional goddies (the hospital in your constituency won't be closed if you vote for this bill) for the members constituency added to proposed laws.


Advertisement