Red C Poll

oscarBravo · 18-01-2015 03:19PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is often repeated by those who favour established parties, but rarely explained.
Those who support independents have often explained why they believe such candidates would be more in tune with their electorate than party TDs - why do you feel this is a misconception? I've genuinely never seen someone who calls BS on the concept actually explain why (not criticising, it could simply be that they've never been asked)

I don't feel it's a misconception at all. I absolutely agree that independents would be far more likely to pander to the whims of their constituents, which is the appalling vista I referenced.

The idea that the best way to run a country is through knee-jerk reaction to whatever it is has most recently annoyed the public enough for them to actually bother to express an opinion on it is, to me, a bizarre one.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 03:50PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't feel it's a misconception at all. I absolutely agree that independents would be far more likely to pander to the whims of their constituents, which is the appalling vista I referenced.

The idea that the best way to run a country is through knee-jerk reaction to whatever it is has most recently annoyed the public enough for them to actually bother to express an opinion on it is, to me, a bizarre one.

Ah I apologize, I mistook you for one of the (in fairness, numerous) posters who suggest that Independents would not be more likely to pander to constituents, but have never really offered an explanation as to where that view comes from.

We should debate the merits or demerits of that in another thread really, but if one supports direct or participatory democracy, then obviously the situation we've described is a lot closer to it than what we have now. I still say it's the lesser of two evils. The way the government is run now, with no regard for what Irish people actually want, is appalling.

I wonder if anyone bothered to do a proper nationwide poll on the subject, how many Irish people would support a Swiss style system?

marienbad · 18-01-2015 03:57PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ah I apologize, I mistook you for one of the (in fairness, numerous) posters who suggest that Independents would not be more likely to pander to constituents, but have never really offered an explanation as to where that view comes from.

We should debate the merits or demerits of that in another thread really, but if one supports direct or participatory democracy, then obviously the situation we've described is a lot closer to it than what we have now. I still say it's the lesser of two evils. The way the government is run now, with no regard for what Irish people actually want, is appalling.

I wonder if anyone bothered to do a proper nationwide poll on the subject, how many Irish people would support a Swiss style system?

But it is not run with no regard to what the people want ! Election after election shows that , What the Irish electorate want more than anything else and by a country mile is stability.

And it appears we will put up with a bloated public service, high levels of corruption and incompetence ,TDs acting like local councillors etc. to have it .

We have always had alternatives but when push comes to shove we don't take them . We don't even take to the streets ( and don't say the water charges) to protest in a consistent way .

conorh91 · 18-01-2015 04:12PM

marienbad wrote: »

Election after election shows that , What the Irish electorate want more than anything else and by a country mile is stability.

It is true, we do want stability. Stability allows people to plan their futures, it gives them a certainty in employment, commercial life and taxation, which are all vital in a successful state. In that sense, I have some reservation about Hatrickpatrick's ideas.

But stability is not the be all and end all of policymaking. Stability is the end-product of responsible policymaking. Responsible policymaking begins with accountability in the first place.

There is no doubt but that the Government is insufficiently accountable to the Dail. There is no doubt that the political parties are too dominant over their members. There is no legitimate reason why the whip shouldn't be abolished, or constitutionally prohibited in the way that Germany has managed.

There is no serious reason why the separation of powers in Irish law should not be observed. Line 1, paragraph 1 in the Rule of Law should surely indicate that the first rule of any legal system is that you don't break your own rules.

These are the very basics in responsible lawmaking. I don't think they are particularly radical, nor do I think they would destabilize the country.

The lack of accountability to date is leading to widespread disaffection, and that disaffection will destabilize the country, if anything does.

marienbad · 18-01-2015 05:11PM

conorh91 wrote: »

It is true, we do want stability. Stability allows people to plan their futures, it gives them a certainty in employment, commercial life and taxation, which are all vital in a successful state. In that sense, I have some reservation about Hatrickpatrick's ideas.

But stability is not the be all and end all of policymaking. Stability is the end-product of responsible policymaking. Responsible policymaking begins with accountability in the first place.

There is no doubt but that the Government is insufficiently accountable to the Dail. There is no doubt that the political parties are too dominant over their members. There is no legitimate reason why the whip shouldn't be abolished, or constitutionally prohibited in the way that Germany has managed.

There is no serious reason why the separation of powers in Irish law should not be observed. Line 1, paragraph 1 in the Rule of Law should surely indicate that the first rule of any legal system is that you don't break your own rules.

These are the very basics in responsible lawmaking. I don't think they are particularly radical, nor do I think they would destabilize the country.

The lack of accountability to date is leading to widespread disaffection, and that disaffection will destabilize the country, if anything does.

I think we can all agree that the current centralising of power to not just the cabinet but an inner circle within that cabinet is not a good thing. And the whip should be used less than it is ,but to do away with it is to invite chaos as long as we have the PR system as it is currently.

conorh91 · 18-01-2015 05:14PM

marienbad wrote: »

to do away with it is to invite chaos as long as we have the PR system as it is currently.

Why does the PR system + free voting invite chaos?

Please don't say it's because of coalition governments. Don't make me bash my head off the desk. You know that other European governments have coalitions and don't need strict party whips, right?

marienbad · 18-01-2015 05:20PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Why does the PR system + free voting invite chaos?

Please don't say it's because of coalition governments. Don't make me bash my head off the desk. You know that other European governments have coalitions and don't need strict party whips, right?

Why bother answering is you are going to do it for us ?

Because every TD would break ranks every time A hospital of a Post Office or a Garda Station was being closed .Some would even do it if a dog catcher was being abolished . It is a fundamental flaw of the multi seat constituency system.

They have a list system in Germany ,correct ?

conorh91 · 18-01-2015 05:43PM

marienbad wrote: »

They have a list system in Germany ,correct ?

Partially, yes.

Is there some sort of problem with the directly elected constituency representatives? I've never heard of this... despite all of them having guaranteed free votes, and despite the existence of 'clubs' and factions with their own agendas within parties in parliament, and despite coalition governments.

marienbad · 18-01-2015 06:28PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Partially, yes.

Is there some sort of problem with the directly elected constituency representatives? I've never heard of this... despite all of them having guaranteed free votes, and despite the existence of 'clubs' and factions with their own agendas within parties in parliament, and despite coalition governments.

Sorry I don't understand you in ref to Ireland ?

As long as we have the John O'Donoghues competing with Jackie Healy-Raes within the constituency we have to have some sort of whip system .

But even putting all that aside I believe some sort of whip system makes for better government - it is interesting to read how it evolved in the UK for example and they have even less need of it than we do .We really should move to some sort of list system though or at least a combination.

conorh91 · 18-01-2015 06:39PM

marienbad wrote: »

As long as we have the John O'Donoghues competing with Jackie Healy-Raes within the constituency we have to have some sort of whip system .

One of those men is retired and the other is buried.

Are you implying that we are somehow different to the Germans in our character? Too thick to make wise political choices? I suggest we are not.

The problem is that our current stock of politicians are relic of the fact that they have no legislative work to do. Policy direction is overseen by Government, and bills and subordinate legislation are drafted by the line departments. The legislators press the green or red buttons or, in the case of the President, 'sign the form'. That's why so many TDs are idiots. They can be be idiots and still press the right buttons. That's a significant reason why we're in a mess.

marienbad · 18-01-2015 06:43PM

conorh91 wrote: »

One of those men is retired and the other is buried.

Are you implying that we are somehow different to the Germans in our character? Too thick to make wise political choices? I suggest we are not.

The problem is that our current stock of politicians are relic of the fact that they have no legislative work to do. Everything is overseen by Government, drafted by the line departments, and the legislators press the green or red buttons. That's why so many TDs are idiots. They can be be idiots and still press the right buttons. That's a significant reason why we're in a mess.

Ah come on , do we have to be so literal !!I am using those two as stereotypes , there are examples of it up and down the country .

And then you ask me if I am saying that we are thick and you go on to call our TD's idiots and we voted for them ?

I really don't understand your argument at this stage .

conorh91 · 18-01-2015 06:48PM

marienbad wrote: »

And then you ask me if I am saying that we are thick and you go on to call our TD's idiots and we voted for them ?

I asked you whether you were imputing an inherent stupidity to voters.

We do have idiots in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Not all of them. Some idiots are inevitable, but a bulk of them are there because it really doesn't matter whether they have any intelligence or not. Press the right buttons; regurgitate the press release; obey the whip. Job done. You don't have to compete against your fellow TDs because ideas shall not be freely exchanged in public. This is a problem.

marienbad · 18-01-2015 06:50PM

conorh91 wrote: »

I asked you whether you were imputing an inherent stupidity to voters.

We do have idiots in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Not all of them. Some idiots are inevitable, but a bulk of them are there because it really doesn't matter whether they have any intelligence or not. Press the right buttons; regurgitate the press release; obey the whip. Job done. You don't have to compete against your fellow TDs because ideas shall not be freely exchanged in public. This is a problem.

Lets leave there so ,I find it difficult to follow you hopping all over the place . If you have a basic argument I don't see it.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 07:18PM

marienbad wrote: »

As long as we have the John O'Donoghues competing with Jackie Healy-Raes within the constituency we have to have some sort of whip system .

I would amend that statement to "as long as we have far too much authority in relation to local matters centralized in the national parliament". If we properly devolved local issues to local government, John O'Donoghues and Healy-Rae's wouldn't be able to abuse the Dail in order to implement local policy.

But even putting all that aside I believe some sort of whip system makes for better government

I suppose that depends on one's definition of good government.

Godge · 18-01-2015 09:52PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I would amend that statement to "as long as we have far too much authority in relation to local matters centralized in the national parliament". If we properly devolved local issues to local government, John O'Donoghues and Healy-Rae's wouldn't be able to abuse the Dail in order to implement local policy.

.

Yes, they would. Congressmen and Senators in the federal United States have an unsurpassed ability to deliver pork-barrel results for their constituents against the common good. It is the ultimate demonstration of the bad results of a loose whip.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 10:27PM

Godge wrote: »

Yes, they would. Congressmen and Senators in the federal United States have an unsurpassed ability to deliver pork-barrel results for their constituents against the common good. It is the ultimate demonstration of the bad results of a loose whip.

Got any examples? Also I'm not sure if US politics can easily be translated to Irish politics (particularly on a federal level) when talking of the utterly vast numbers of constituents represented by each congress member. That's one of the reasons I don't support signing sovereignty away to Europe. PArticipatory democracy works much better on smaller scales.

marienbad · 18-01-2015 10:42PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Got any examples? Also I'm not sure if US politics can easily be translated to Irish politics (particularly on a federal level) when talking of the utterly vast numbers of constituents represented by each congress member. That's one of the reasons I don't support signing sovereignty away to Europe. PArticipatory democracy works much better on smaller scales.

Are you seriously looking for examples ?? It is such an ingrained part of the legislative process there that I am somewhat surprised you are unaware of it.

alaimacerc · 18-01-2015 11:26PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Got any examples?

Not for nothing did they coin the term "pork-barrel politics". Which you might google if you're in need of more detail.

Also I'm not sure if US politics can easily be translated to Irish politics (particularly on a federal level) when talking of the utterly vast numbers of constituents represented by each congress member.

So... we should ignore the differences between the US and Ireland when borrowing features about the former's system that you fancy the look of? But stress the differences when minimising the assessment of the likely downsides, were we to do so?

That's one of the reasons I don't support signing sovereignty away to Europe.

We're certainly fairly pacing through the topics here, aren't we. As we're already some distance away from the original scope, however (anyone remember someone about a Red C opinion poll?) I suggest we exercise a degree of restraint.

alaimacerc · 18-01-2015 11:43PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Partially, yes.

Is there some sort of problem with the directly elected constituency representatives?

What sort of "problem"? The question is, is Germany some sort of party-management-free zone, as you seem to be keen to imply. The answer is very clearly "no". Selection of candidates for either the regional lists, or the single-seat constituencies (effectively FPTP) isn't in some mystical way beyond the control of parties.

I've never heard of this... despite all of them having guaranteed free votes, and despite the existence of 'clubs' and factions with their own agendas within parties in parliament, and despite coalition governments.

Your chain of "despites" seems very muddled. Which of these are you arguing for, and which are just thrown in there for good measure?

alaimacerc · 18-01-2015 11:57PM

conorh91 wrote: »

You just did it again.

You're suggesting this another "straw man"? If you're going to keep throwing that accusation around, you might eventually want to look the phrase up. Because it does not apply here.

I made clear in my last post I was not referring to independent v party politics.

And yet, this was precisely the context of the discussion into which you interjected. And frankly, no, you did not.

And if you read back, the question you asked, to which I responded, related only to internal dissent. I am talking about internal dissent being facilitated in legislatures of parliamentary democracies such as in Germany. How can I make this any more clear? A billboard? A picture? what?

Perhaps by in any whatsoever actually saying what you were referring to? As opposed to vague throwaways like "facilitates internal dissent", which are next to meaningless with any hint of context. The German system clearly has aspects that do not promote "internal dissent". So just picking one aspect in isolation (not troubling to even say what it is, mind), ignoring the others, and hoping for a meaningful exercise seems... optimistic.

Godge · 19-01-2015 12:07AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Got any examples? Also I'm not sure if US politics can easily be translated to Irish politics (particularly on a federal level) when talking of the utterly vast numbers of constituents represented by each congress member. That's one of the reasons I don't support signing sovereignty away to Europe. PArticipatory democracy works much better on smaller scales.

It is the ultimate loose whip system, very similar to what you are arguing for.

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/the-10-most-absurd-pork-barrel-spending-items-of-2010-cm32756

http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/what-is-pork-barrel-spending-definition-examples.html

http://www.akdart.com/pork3.html

http://www.areddy.net/mscott/porkabs.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/17/politics/new-debt-deal-pork/

If you elect a bunch of independents, this is the type of thing you get. If you think it is bad now, it would be much worse if we were beholden to a group of independents only interested in bridges in Ballyhaunis and broadband in Cahirciveen.

alaimacerc · 19-01-2015 12:42AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Your error in reading my posts is assuming I want to swap our existing system for another existing system.

I'm afraid not. Did you somehow miss my descriptions of your suggestions as "cherry-picking"? I think the reading errors here are entirely yours.

Specifically, you've mentioned approvingly elements of a presidential system which you seem to believe carry over. Firstly, some of those would be problematic to implement in a parliamentary system at all. Secondly, if you adopt a package of measures, you'll get a package of results. You can't just assume you'll have a "narrow-spectrum" silver bullet that gets just the one particular "tweak" you want, and no others.

Something doesn't necessarily have to be being done in some other country to be a good idea.

But you were talking about things that were done in other countries. And then objecting when the nature of the implied comparison was questioned.

My use of the word "mid term" was perhaps misguided.

I'll say.

All I meant was that I like the fact that representatives in the US are up for re-election every two years instead of five, meaning they are in perpetual fear of the electorate rather than having a "trough" period in which they feel they can safely ignore the electorate. That's all.

And to make clear, if it wasn't from my earlier response: two-year Dail terms is IMO a horrific idea. If you think that perpetual "fear": or more precisely, perpetual stumping, perpetual money-raising, and massive incumbency are good aspects of the US system, either you're judging the nature of the US congressional politics very different from how I do, or again, assuming you can get the alleged good, without the obvious bad. (Also notice that the US also has a Senate with real teeth, and its terms are longer than that of TDs, as well as a separately-elected president with not inconsiderable powers they can exercise independently.)

Again, I'm honestly starting to believe that if Red C ran a poll tomorrow which returned a headline of "Majority of voters tired of guillotine politics", those posters would still be here trying to say "Those voters are really saying something else entirely and are probably fine with guillotine politics".

The difference being (... among others), there's been no such exercise, and if there were, it wouldn't be testable by any means that spring to mind. The voting intention survey has happened -- and it's the thing we're supposedly talking about here, in between the copious sidetracks -- and is testable. To wit, by "will people actually vote that way come the GE?" And I've already given my reasoning as to why they won't, much less see it translated into corresponding numbers of seats (45-ish, or more if you were to assume that 29% gives the Indies a "big party bonus", as it would if any of the actual parties were on 29%).

Feel free to gloat if I'm wrong on this -- it'll be the least of my worries in that sort of eventuality.

hatrickpatrick · 19-01-2015 01:56AM

marienbad wrote: »

Are you seriously looking for examples ?? It is such an ingrained part of the legislative process there that I am somewhat surprised you are unaware of it.

I'm not as well versed in US state politics as some, I was certainly aware that pandering to corporations is endemic but not parish pump stuff necessarily.

marienbad · 19-01-2015 01:59AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not as well versed in US state politics as some, I was certainly aware that pandering to corporations is endemic but not parish pump stuff necessarily.

I am talking about national politics , have a look at the pork barrelling in the federal budget sometime , it is bigger the total budget of a small to medium sized country !

alaimacerc · 19-01-2015 02:28AM

Godge wrote: »

If you elect a bunch of independents, this is the type of thing you get.

To be fair, if you elect a bunch of independents, the type of thing you get... very much depends. As far as unashamed localism goes, I'm not sure you can get much more so than JHR. No rhetoric, no pretence at ideology, just give us the cash. The only way it could get worse is in the amount: either the number of such TDs, or the price per unit.

The present crop of Indies have been a lot better. OTOH, that's in the context where the government hasn't depended on them, so there's been no nitty-gritty policy crunches, and where the "main" opposition party's still looking rather shellshocked, and they've had the opportunity to take up the slack.

But in general, you could be getting anything from pothole-mending, Trotskyism, Christian Conservatism, and radical free-marketeering. And in many cases, much the same bill of goods as the main parties, just with the serial numbers filed off so as to escape the "look what your lot did [last time]" barb.

CramCycle · 19-01-2015 10:12AM

marienbad wrote: »

It is a fundamental flaw of the multi seat constituency system.

It's a fundamental flaw of having too many TDs for the size of our population. They have to pander to get reelected.

Personally I believe it should be somewhere around the 40 to 60 mark in terms of number of TDs. Pandering would be impossible and would have to be left to councillors.

FreudianSlippers · 19-01-2015 12:20PM

CramCycle wrote: »

It's a fundamental flaw of having too many TDs for the size of our population. They have to pander to get reelected.

Personally I believe it should be somewhere around the 40 to 60 mark in terms of number of TDs. Pandering would be impossible and would have to be left to councillors.

We need a true bi-cameral government - the Dail can focus on national issues and the Seanad can sort out local matters; cut the councils down and abolish the local authorities. Sweeping reform is needed but the government in its inherent wisdom went for a power grab rather than reform. FG and Labour should be forever shamed for attempting to abolish the Seanad .

BoJack Horseman · 19-01-2015 02:11PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We need a true bi-cameral government - the Dail can focus on national issues and the Seanad can sort out local matters; .

Is it really the job of a parliaments upper house to lobby for potholls & medical card applications?

Seems a waste.

FreudianSlippers · 19-01-2015 02:29PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is it really the job of a parliaments upper house to lobby for potholls & medical card applications?

Seems a waste.

Well you can flip 'em around if you want; they're not doing much else at the moment.

CramCycle · 19-01-2015 02:32PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is it really the job of a parliaments upper house to lobby for potholls & medical card applications?

Seems a waste.

Seems like a job for the council, report a pothole, get them to fill it. Apply for a medical card, get it or if it gets refused, apply to see are your exceptional circumstances, that you think are applicable, valid and either get refused again or have it accepted.

Not sure how it's even possible for a TD to get involved (although I have no doubt it has been done).

If there were less TDs, they would not be able to focus on rubbish like this.

Red C Poll

Comments