Un-elected Taoiseach should call election within 1 year

mikedublin

Just a thought....I think there should be something written into the constitution in future to say any un-elected Taoiseach (such as Brian Cowen) should have to seek and get a mandate from the electorate within 1 year of taking over after the resignation or whatever of an elected taoiseach.
At the moment he and FF are following a radical agenda (massive tax rises, cuts, borrowing, generally wrecking the economy) totally different to what they stood for in the 2007 general election.
I think we should have a Free and Fair election now.

P. Breathnach

Brian Cowen is not an unelected Taoiseach.

The constitution sets down the procedure for electing the Taoiseach. It is by vote in Dail Eireann. He was elected according to those rules. The rest of us have no vote in that election.

sink

We never vote for a Taoiseach, we vote for TD's and they elect one of them as Taoiseach.

johnnyskeleton

More importantly, he was elected by the people of Laois-Offaly with an overwhelming majority.

He was also minister for finance in a Fianna Fail government that the people returned to power, while knowing that Bertie's days were numbered.

That makes him as elected as can be.

As to whether he should call an election, it is not the smart move from his part, but it might be inevitable that we have one as the by-elections might go badly for FF and at that stage, maybe the coalition will crack (the greens were talking about standing firm a few weeks ago).

O'Coonassa

"We never vote for a Taoiseach, we vote for TD's and they elect one of them as Taoiseach."

In a democratic republic they have the office of president instead of a Queen substitute. It's totally ridiculous and anti-demoratic that we don't get to choose our leaders.

Robbo

This is a curious suggestion and part of the reason why I think that the Irish public have little grasp of the brief of a TD.

They seem to generally elect them as county councillors, on a "fixing the potholes" and "sorting out the grant payment", sentiment or else go way above that and you have an election presented as a presidential style affair like the last one was presented as a binary choice between Bertie Ahern and Enda Kenny.

In proportion to having one of the most sophisticated electoral systems in christendom, we seem to be paying for this with the least sophisticated electorate.

johnnyskeleton

O'Coonassa wrote: »

"We never vote for a Taoiseach, we vote for TD's and they elect one of them as Taoiseach."

In a democratic republic they have the office of president instead of a Queen substitute. It's totally ridiculous and anti-demoratic that we don't get to choose our leaders.

We do get to choose our leaders, we just don't get to choose which one of them is the leader of the leaders. The UK government is formed in the same way.

What the OP is advocating sounds to me like the French system (if memory serves) whereby they vote in the parliament, the parliament chooses a president and then the people have a vote to approve this president. Better than the US system whereby if the president and congress are diametrically opposed, very little can be done.

P. Breathnach

O'Coonassa wrote: »

... It's totally ridiculous and anti-demoratic that we don't get to choose our leaders.

It's not anti-democratic: it's one form of democracy.

is_that_so

O'Coonassa wrote: »

"We never vote for a Taoiseach, we vote for TD's and they elect one of them as Taoiseach."

In a democratic republic they have the office of president instead of a Queen substitute. It's totally ridiculous and anti-demoratic that we don't get to choose our leaders.

What do people regularly trot out this rubbish, in the guise of being concerned about democracy? It's just another "I hate the Govt" rant. If you can't trust the TDs that we the "people" in our wisdom have voted in, how on earth are you going to trust the same "people" when they "pick a Taoiseach"? But then that would produce another type of rant of there being too much government.

dave-higgz

I think we need a clear distinction between our local and national representatives. There should be more focus on local councils. They will be the people who you know and who you go to with problems like "potholes". Then we dramatically reduce the numbers in the dail to around 60. That way they can use the seanad chamber which is a 60 seater
That would be kinda like the American senate with one rep from each constituency or similar.
Also abolish the seanad or find some reformed similar setup to put in the now empty dail chamber.

Then we have a directly elected taoiseach with running mate (tainiste) and then similar to America we let anyone be a minister (chosen by the taoiseach), thus opening the criteria to minister for finance with a background in FINANCE (not law)
and maybe a doctor who also knows how to sort out the health service.

I know there are probably flaws here but something along these lines needs to be done, at least those in bold.

OH and lower the voting age to 16 PLEASE :eek:

turgon

Maybe the whole idea of proportional representation and the general system we have was brought in a) because it was similar to the British system and b) to give representation to all members of society, ie unionists.

Having a directly elected PM gets rid of this. Think Higgz, if Cowen was directly elected he would have no influence form the greens or anything. At least in our system he is accountable to more than the party he leads.

As another poster said, the problem lies not in the system but in the electorate.

passive

dave-higgz wrote: »

OH and lower the voting age to 16 PLEASE :eek:

Why not 12, while we're at it?

P. Breathnach

passive wrote: »

Why not 12, while we're at it?

We might be allowing some immature people to vote.

Oh. Wait...

Oh.

Oh.

HELP!

dave-higgz

If a 16 or 17 year old can leave school, seek full time employment, pay taxes or be detained at a detention centre, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Below that is irresponsible as many 15 year olds and under wouldn't care. However 16+ is after the junior cert and usually around transition year where we become more mature. There are many kids my age who know much more about politics than many adults and we need our voices heard about the issues that effect us.

Some other great reasons here
http://www.voteat16.ie/seven_reasons

O'Coonassa

is_that_so wrote: »

What do people regularly trot out this rubbish, in the guise of being concerned about democracy? It's just another "I hate the Govt" rant. If you can't trust the TDs that we the "people" in our wisdom have voted in, how on earth are you going to trust the same "people" when they "pick a Taoiseach"? But then that would produce another type of rant of there being too much government.

I think people focus too heavily on local issues when voting for their TD's but by electing a national leader it would force them to think of national and international issues.

passive

dave-higgz wrote: »

Some other great reasons here
http://www.voteat16.ie/seven_reasons

I'm just disappointed that there's no voteat21.ie

Children are far more inclined to vote for the extremes, and when I was 16 I was a member of the young socialist party, and would have voted accordingly. Fortunately I grew out of that, as did most of my peers... That said, there's **** all worth believing in in this country's political system, but if 16 year olds wielded any significant power there would be more support for extreme left and extreme right groups, that would be filtered out by a bit more education and maturity.

dave-higgz

passive wrote: »

I'm just disappointed that there's no voteat21.ie

Children are far more inclined to vote for the extremes, and when I was 16 I was a member of the young socialist party, and would have voted accordingly. Fortunately I grew out of that, as did most of my peers... That said, there's **** all worth believing in in this country's political system, but if 16 year olds wielded any significant power there would be more support for extreme left and extreme right groups, that would be filtered out by a bit more education and maturity.

That's a huge assumption. I didn't even know there was a young socialist group, I only thought there was youth FG/FF etc. Many of the people I know would only use a vote for an established reputable party. In CSPE we didn't even mention the socialist party and sinn fein only has one line in the book.
I realize in social class areas the left wing parties could gain considerable ground in the 16-18 voting group however just because people disagree with their policies doesn't mean that the mature voice of many teenagers should be denied.

walrusgumble

mikedublin wrote: »

Just a thought....I think there should be something written into the constitution in future to say any un-elected Taoiseach (such as Brian Cowen) should have to seek and get a mandate from the electorate within 1 year of taking over after the resignation or whatever of an elected taoiseach.
At the moment he and FF are following a radical agenda (massive tax rises, cuts, borrowing, generally wrecking the economy) totally different to what they stood for in the 2007 general election.
I think we should have a Free and Fair election now.

interesting post

but

would you really call their agenda "radical" haven't we seen this before? it think alot will depend on how the locals and europe go, it will give opposition and possibly even ff back benchers cause for getting loud (no s*it sherlock lol)

walrusgumble

O'Coonassa wrote: »

"We never vote for a Taoiseach, we vote for TD's and they elect one of them as Taoiseach."

In a democratic republic they have the office of president instead of a Queen substitute. It's totally ridiculous and anti-demoratic that we don't get to choose our leaders.

could the argument be that prior to the elections, we know who the party leaders are and we know what the consequences are if a certain party gets more votes than the other. isn't the fact that leaders have the big show down on programmes like question and answers prior to the voting day telling everyone who wishes to listen what they will do (ye right f*ckers are incapable of answering straight questions)

remember the presidential style elections last time round - "bertie's team"

O'Coonassa

walrusgumble wrote: »

could the argument be that prior to the elections, we know who the party leaders are and we know what the consequences are if a certain party gets more votes than the other. isn't the fact that leaders have the big show down on programmes like question and answers prior to the voting day telling everyone who wishes to listen what they will do (ye right f*ckers are incapable of answering straight questions)

remember the presidential style elections last time round - "bertie's team"

Indeed but these leaders insinuate themselves into that position not because of any proven capability of function but rather for their abilities to brown-nose and charm their ways through the party structure. Indeed the same holds true for all party candidates but for the leaders especially so. This is why we continually end up with grossly incapable and corrupt people in positions of power. I can't help but lament the fact and think the people should be given the choice of who leads them at a national and international level.

sink

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Indeed but these leaders insinuate themselves into that position not because of any proven capability of function but rather for their abilities to brown-nose and charm their ways through the party structure. Indeed the same holds true for all party candidates but for the leaders especially so. This is why we continually end up with grossly incapable and corrupt people in positions of power. I can't help but lament the fact and think the people should be given the choice of who leads them at a national and international level.

Of course that never happens when leaders are directly elected. :rolleyes:

lostexpectation

how would people feel if the taoiseach changed again before another election, i bet you might consider going for election then. there is rules and there's practice.

walrusgumble

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Indeed but these leaders insinuate themselves into that position not because of any proven capability of function but rather for their abilities to brown-nose and charm their ways through the party structure. Indeed the same holds true for all party candidates but for the leaders especially so. This is why we continually end up with grossly incapable and corrupt people in positions of power. I can't help but lament the fact and think the people should be given the choice of who leads them at a national and international level.

jesus the actions of candidates during elections make me cringe, with their fake smiles etc.

the thoughts of hearing those tales of haughey doing the chicken and chips run, pretending to listen to the good auld honest to goodness sh&t for brain punter etc, i'd say he had some chuckles back in the car appaulding himself on how he got on mighty with everyone

then there is the horrors of attending or watching the ard fheis (with the exeption of the hillery war cry of you can have boland...) watch the old clips bald fat men bauling their eyes out, waving flags etc, brendan grace dressed as a school child, we are all one happy family, john bruton trying to be down with the people. still its just as bad as in england, remember the spin, sorry promises of tony blair in 1996:rolleyes: bet they all look stupid now (supporters)

bertie the man of the people always shaking hands.out of interest though, did anyone ever corner him when he was out and about freshing the flesh and actually get a minute of his time, when there was no cameras around.

still it could not be as bad as enda kenny. i think there is a you tube clip of him on the prowl with fg candidate at the time, nicky mcfadden in the golden island sc area of athlone. enda was down for a bit to endorse her. what does she do? bloody nothing and says nothing just makes sure that she is seen with him. the clip then rolls along with enda on a mission to win the record for most handsakes in a two minute run, run i dont use the word for the hell of it.

the clip just shows him trying, in some cases just to shake peoples hands and walk off, not waiting for the people even to say hello, - real man of the people there enda, then he proceeds to the ends of the sc in tesco (dead end of sc)

i remember while in college up the country he was told by me and a few of my mates, who were out having a fag in smoking are, under no uncertain terms where to go with himself when he tried to get a picuture opportunity with us. jesus we were made look like outcasts by young fine gealers and student union for some time. good days


i am from down the country, and i dont want to generalise, are places like the cities the only places that really give a sh&t about international and national issues when their local needs are made (when ever that happens i think we are in heaven)? if its the case, why dont executive powers in certain areas then be expanded to county councils:eek::D and leave the dail elections open solely for issues of actual national and international concern
(i would like to say to those who would have bothered to answer or comment to the last bit, i agree in advance to what i think ye would say if they were dissenting)

O'Coonassa

sink wrote: »

Of course that never happens when leaders are directly elected. :rolleyes:

I believe it would happen less. We could choose leaders on their own merits for proven capability of function rather than because of their affiliation to a party who, for their services rendered, have foisted them on us.

O'Coonassa

walrusgumble wrote: »

jesus the actions of candidates during elections make me cringe, with their fake smiles etc.

lol it's fairly cringeworthy alright. We have ones round our way that belong to family dynasties that have held power for generations I sometimes feel like I'm still living under Normano-Gaelic overlords lol All manner of brown envelopisms and dodgyness behind the scenes but all out kissing babies and smiling fakely right on cue.