Oireachtas Reform (upcoming Liberal Society Debate)

The_Minister

As mentioned in another thread, the Liberal Society are having a debate on Oireachtas reform on Tuesday, with representatives from every party bar Fine gael.
The event will be chaired by Tom Clonan ("If Lynch had invaded") and speakers include former Minister for Finance Ruairí Quinn TD, Minister of State for European Affairs Dick Roche, former Tainaiste Michael McDowell, and Senator Dan Boyle. Details here.


I was wondering what people here think about Oireachtas reform?
Many people have called for the Dail to be shrunk down to 100 or so, and the Seanad to be abolished, but I disagree with this.

I think the first thing that has to be done is to seperate out the legislature from the executive. The Taoiseach should be allowed to nominate who he wants to a particular ministry, and then have the Dail endorse them.
This would mean that:
(1) We could have actual accountability, as they could be fired/made resign and there would be no question of where the replacement would come from. Also, they would have no seperate mandate and could be forced to leave public life altogether for misbehaviour.

(2)That the pool of candidates would be far wider than before - America's equivalent of the Minister for Environment is a Nobel prize-winner because Obama wasn't stuck appointing people from the pool of elected representatives.

(3) Ministries would no longer be doled out on a geographical basis - as Ministers would no longer have to seek reelection, they would not have to divert resources on a disproportionate basis to their constituency.

(4) Ministers could work full-time at their brief and would not have to keep running back to their constituency to get votes.

(5) Ministers could be judged solely on their achievements while in office, and the situation where an awful Minister could be kept in place due to the fact that he was a big vote-getter would be gone.

What would be the first Oireachtas reform that you would put in place?

Scofflaw

Abolition of the Party Whip system!

cordially,
Scofflaw

The_Minister

Scofflaw wrote: »

Abolition of the Party Whip system!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Can that actually be done though?

I used to think that, but when I read back it seems to have arisen due to natural selection - those parties without it seem to have died while those with it seem to do better.

It doesn't seem to be a product of a particular law or constitutional clause, but rather seems to stem from the forces that arise from democracy itself.

bijapos

My 2 cents worth, just a few ideas. The system needs to be completley overhauled, not just bit by bit.


National Government

Elections every four years.

100 seats

List system for voting.

50 on a single national list.

50 by constituency using 8 constituencies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland and using the present system of PRSTV

Referendum on Abolotion of Seanad

20% reduction in TD's wages
30% reduction for Junior ministers
40% for ministers
50% for Tanaiste and Taoiseach

Presidents wages to be reduced to €100,000 as it is only a representative post. Expenses, pensions etc to be overhauled.

Complete overhaul of expenses pensions staffing numbers etc

TD's to spend 5 days a week in Dublin, a lot of the constituency work will be taken over by regional councillors.

Referendum to be held if 100,000 registered voters sign a petition.

Pensions only payable at 68. No multiple pensions.

Presidents Office

Presidents office to be overhauled.

Term of 5 years

Nomination possible with 25,000 signatures, or one county council backing or three TD's or Senators both serving and retired.

Minimum age of candidate to be dropped to 18.


Local Government

8 regional councils

Elected every 4 years

Elections per region to be staggered every 6 months

Voting age of 17

One councillor per 8,000 voters

Position of councillor to be a full time one

5% of electorate signing a petition to force a referendum in the region, result legally binding

Local government to be given tax raising powers in some areas.



Community Government

A town/village/parish/area to be given the possibility to create a community council where a portion of some locally raised taxes such as rates, second home taxes, property taxes, will be given to that community to spend locally on educational, cultural, sporting and amenity issues.

Comm. councils to be elected every year, basic renumeration of €100 per councillor p.a. to cover phone, petrol etc.

Maximum of 1 councillor per 200 people max of 1 per 100.

An area of 1500 people may form their own community council.

10% of the electorate in that area may sign for a binding referendum to be held.

Person may stand for election at 16

Voting age of 15.

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

Abolition of the Party Whip system!

cordially,
Scofflaw

+1

Denerick

'Binding referendums'??? The experience of California would suggest that most people are idiots and incapable of distinguishing the contradiction between voting to cut taxes whilst simultaneously voting to increase spending. The less democracy in these cases the better.

blubloblu

What about electing the Seanad from one nationwide constituency?

The_Minister

blubloblu wrote: »

What about electing the Seanad from one nationwide constituency?

I thought of that a while ago, and so far I haven't been able to find any problems - hell of a ballot paper though:)

Sulmac

A national list system with 100 TDs (1% of the vote = 1 seat) would be the first thing, but see here and here too (though not everything relates to Oireachtas reform!).

edit: The_Minister, although I agree with your idea of separating the executive and legislature, the only thing I fear is that a Taoiseach would just use it to nominate their "buddies" who failed to get elected to the Dáil (rather than someone who would genuinely be good at the job) - something akin to the eleven Taoiseach nominees we have to the Seanad now!

It will take more than just Oireachtas reform, what we need is an entire shift in attitudes to politics.

Pride Fighter

blubloblu wrote: »

What about electing the Seanad from one nationwide constituency?

How about reducing it to 40 and having it elected along European constituency lines with 10 senators per constituency?

Denerick

Pride Fighter wrote: »

How about reducing it to 40 and having it elected along European constituency lines with 10 senators per constituency?

There is no reason to do this. Personally I would like to see a non partisan upper house with greater powers of oversight, to act as a check on the lower house. I don't think unicameral parliaments are good ideas. On the other hand, in the present circumstances, what is to be gained from electing senators? Turnout would be ridiculously low, so low in fact that an awful lot of chancers will get in due to the law of probability. Expect some Pat Short parodies in there if this ever comes about.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bryanw

The_Minister wrote: »

I thought of that a while ago, and so far I haven't been able to find any problems - hell of a ballot paper though:)

Open up the Seanad to a wider electorate and you then just have a mirror image of the Dail. More gombeenism and the likes of Ross and Norris wouldn't get a look in.

Scofflaw wrote:

Abolition of the Party Whip system!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Whilst it would be nice to allow people to be free to vote as the so choose, and technically I believe this is still the case, you can't take away the freedom of people to associate.

IrishTonyO

bryanw wrote: »

Whilst it would be nice to allow people to be free to vote as the so choose, and technically I believe this is still the case, you can't take away the freedom of people to associate.

They can associate all they want, just have every vote a free vote.

bryanw

Yes, but if they wish to be a member of a party, such a party may impose a whip, meaning that those who vote against can be reprimanded by the party. Nothing to do with the Oireactas as such, but of being a member of the party.

oscarBravo

bryanw wrote: »

Yes, but if they wish to be a member of a party, such a party may impose a whip, meaning that those who vote against can be reprimanded by the party. Nothing to do with the Oireactas as such, but of being a member of the party.

You actually make a valid point: the concept of a party whip is one of internal party discipline, as distinct from an intrinsic feature of our political system.

So, what we need to do is get the message across to our political representatives that we object to a system that places loyalty to the party above duty to the electorate.

Of course, the right way to do that is to vote those representatives out at the next election - but we don't have a good track record of voting people out even after near-criminal wrongdoing, so I don't hold out much hope for voting them out in the hope of forcing political reform.

bryanw

oscarBravo wrote: »

You actually make a valid point: the concept of a party whip is one of internal party discipline, as distinct from an intrinsic feature of our political system.

So, what we need to do is get the message across to our political representatives that we object to a system that places loyalty to the party above duty to the electorate.

Of course, the right way to do that is to vote those representatives out at the next election - but we don't have a good track record of voting people out even after near-criminal wrongdoing, so I don't hold out much hope for voting them out in the hope of forcing political reform.

Turkeys voting for Christmas...

expectationlost

who arguing against the motion? haha


thats what we need more blonde women staring into the middle distance that'll clean up the oireacthas

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object2/1498/78/n123670627669517_5391.jpg

expectationlost

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course, the right way to do that is to vote those representatives out at the next election - but we don't have a good track record of voting people out even after near-criminal wrongdoing, so I don't hold out much hope for voting them out in the hope of forcing political reform.

.

wouldn't make much difference if the next person that comes in votes with the whip of their party, unless your blaming the people for not voting out all the party politicians overnight?

The_Minister

Oh, and btw, if any of you come on the night, feel free to say hi.:)

I'll be the tall guy with blonde hair, glasses and a hassled look on my face.

I know we don't have politics beers because we would all kill each other :P but it would be cool to meet some Boardsies.

imme

The_Minister wrote: »

I know we don't have politics beers because we would all kill each other :P but it would be cool to meet some Boardsies.

yeah t'would be an interesting gathering alright.
enjoy the debate

Het-Field

The_Minister wrote: »

Oh, and btw, if any of you come on the night, feel free to say hi.:)

I'll be the tall guy with blonde hair, glasses and a hassled look on my face.

I know we don't have politics beers because we would all kill each other :P but it would be cool to meet some Boardsies.

Also identifiable by virtue of his disposition to breath in a threatening manner if surrounded by women !

The_Minister

Het-Field wrote: »

Also identifiable by virtue of his disposition to breath in a threatening manner if surrounded by women !

There will be women there!?:eek:

*hyperventilates*

bryanw

The_Minister wrote: »

There will be women there!?:eek:

*hyperventilates*

A gender quota will be imposed. Drag if needs be.

Het-Field

bryanw wrote: »

A gender quota will be imposed. Drag if needs be.

I didnt know you're dad was coming !!!???!!!

bryanw

Het-Field wrote: »

I didnt know you're dad was coming !!!???!!!

Ouch! The bitch has claws, girlfriend!

At least my joke had something vaguely to do with political reform!

The_Minister

Sulmac wrote: »

edit: The_Minister, although I agree with your idea of separating the executive and legislature, the only thing I fear is that a Taoiseach would just use it to nominate their "buddies" who failed to get elected to the Dáil (rather than someone who would genuinely be good at the job) - something akin to the eleven Taoiseach nominees we have to the Seanad now!

They would appoint the policy wonks from the bowels of the party, who tend to be unelectable but absolute geniuses.

bryanw

The_Minister wrote: »

They would appoint the policy wonks from the bowels of the party, who tend to be unelectable but absolute geniuses.

More like Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, Ivor Callely, Eoghan Harris, Donie Cassidy... to name but a few.

All these would be on the short-list for a FF Taoiseach-appointed cabinet!

Het-Field

The_Minister wrote: »

They would appoint the policy wonks from the bowels of the party, who tend to be unelectable but absolute geniuses.

Martin Mansergh, Michael McDowell, Stephen O Byrnes, Conor Cruse O Brien, Peter Sutherland, and John Rogers all spring to mind. These are men which would be very useful in the executive. However, none are conventionally electable, but could be very useful as policy makers. The same applies to people like Maurice Neligan, Denis O Brien etc.

The difficulty in Irish politics is that it becomes a haven for the ousted hack, who is then dressed up as an "intellect", and put into lowly positions of policy formation.

scallioneater

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My understanding was that the role of the Seanad was just to function as a "brake" rather than as a "check" on the lower house.

I don't think that we need to scrap the Seanad, it forms a valuable venue for opposition or support. Almost every other democracy is bi-cameral, I don't know why we shoud get rid of ours.

The Seanad is also a good place for excluded groups to gain a voice. Groups as varied as the openly gay and businesses have gotten reps into the Seanad. These people would never get elected to the Dail, but they contribute extremely valuable perspectives to the national debates. (ie. When I was growing up, Senator Norris was a refreshing opinion when every other role model I knew denied the existence of homosexuality)

My reform for the Seanad would include cutting pay, but I would add some extra panels for the Unemployed, Immigrants, and for Travellers. For me, the Seanad can grow into an exceptionally inclusive government body, that the Dail can never be.

IrishTonyO

scallioneater wrote: »

My understanding was that the role of the Seanad was just to function as a "brake" rather than as a "check" on the lower house.

I don't think that we need to scrap the Seanad, it forms a valuable venue for opposition or support. Almost every other democracy is bi-cameral, I don't know why we shoud get rid of ours.

The Seanad is also a good place for excluded groups to gain a voice. Groups as varied as the openly gay and businesses have gotten reps into the Seanad. These people would never get elected to the Dail, but they contribute extremely valuable perspectives to the national debates. (ie. When I was growing up, Senator Norris was a refreshing opinion when every other role model I knew denied the existence of homosexuality)

My reform for the Seanad would include cutting pay, but I would add some extra panels for the Unemployed, Immigrants, and for Travellers. For me, the Seanad can grow into an exceptionally inclusive government body, that the Dail can never be.

The Seanad is undemocratic. If it is to stay the members should be elected by the entire electorate and not the elite few and political appointments. And it should also have the power to stop legislation passed by the Dail if the members see fit. Other than than it is a talking shop, and an 'old folks home' for politicians

bryanw

Het-Field wrote: »

The difficulty in Irish politics is that it becomes a haven for the ousted hack, who is then dressed up as an "intellect", and put into lowly positions of policy formation.

Then someone like Bertie comes along... and guess who he picks as his cabinet when given a blank canvass! And not to mention all the state boards he can appoint to!

The_Minister

Oh, a promo for the debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59feMi_wj2o

EDIT: What was that phrase that McDowell used to describe the Seanad?

"A cross between a cradle and a convalescent home" or something.

bryanw

The_Minister wrote: »

EDIT: What was that phrase that McDowell used to describe the Seanad?

"A cross between a cradle and a convalescent home" or something.

But McDowell also came out against the FG proposal to abolish it.

IrishTonyO

The_Minister wrote: »

Oh, a promo for the debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59feMi_wj2o

EDIT: What was that phrase that McDowell used to describe the Seanad?

"A cross between a cradle and a convalescent home" or something.

I can understand most people invited to attend but Dan Boyle? A failed politician? Whose place in the Seanad was payment from Bertie for Green party support???

Melange

Somewhat disappointed to see the lack of a FG representative, tbh.

The_Minister

bryanw wrote: »

But McDowell also came out against the FG proposal to abolish it.

He used to favour abolishing it in the early 90s - he changed his view in recent times - no idea why.

Ask him after the event.

The_Minister

Melange wrote: »

Somewhat disappointed to see the lack of a FG representative, tbh.

There was a FG representative, but they cancelled.

After that we tried hard to get FG to send someone.

We even delayed our press release to give them more time.

They just couldn't get anyone - I think everyone is holding their breath after the recent scuffles.

bryanw

The_Minister wrote: »

There was a FG representative, but they cancelled.

After that we tried hard to get FG to send someone.

We even delayed our press release to give them more time.

They just couldn't get anyone - I think everyone is holding their breath after the recent scuffles.

Surely it would be in their interest to promote their policies that they have put resources into coming up with. Given that they are the only ones coming up with any at the moment. And trying to regain credibility after the recent debacle.

Butch Cassidy

bryanw wrote: »

Open up the Seanad to a wider electorate and you then just have a mirror image of the Dail. More gombeenism and the likes of Ross and Norris wouldn't get a look in.


Whilst it would be nice to allow people to be free to vote as the so choose, and technically I believe this is still the case, you can't take away the freedom of people to associate.

bryanw wrote: »

Yes, but if they wish to be a member of a party, such a party may impose a whip, meaning that those who vote against can be reprimanded by the party. Nothing to do with the Oireactas as such, but of being a member of the party.

The party whip system is essentially someone else interfering with one's vote. It's like the father of a family telling the people that live under "his roof" who to vote for.

As far as I know FG recently published some reform materials on the Oireachtas one of which included doing away with the whip system or at least limiting it. Personally I think it should be legislated for so that elected reps are voting with their conscience and with they support rather than what they're told to vote for. The whip system is an affront to democracy really and it gives you bloody bizarre incidents like Paul Gogarty saying he doesn't believe in what he's voting for but he'll take it on the chin anyway and lose his seat.


With regards to the Seanad: Why not appoint people to it in the same that people are appointed to juries?

bryanw

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

The party whip system is essentially someone else interfering with one's vote. It's like the father of a family telling the people that live under "his roof" who to vote for.

As far as I know FG recently published some reform materials on the Oireachtas one of which included doing away with the whip system or at least limiting it. Personally I think it should be legislated for so that elected reps are voting with their conscience and with they support rather than what they're told to vote for. The whip system is an affront to democracy really and it gives you bloody bizarre incidents like Paul Gogarty saying he doesn't believe in what he's voting for but he'll take it on the chin anyway and lose his seat.

This party whip system is ridiculous alright, in that it basically means that the government can ram through legislation, but I would not be in favour of forcing people to not to associate to parties. It's up to the individual whether to follow the whip or to break ranks.

Butch Cassidy

The_Minister wrote: »

As mentioned in another thread, the Liberal Society are having a debate on Oireachtas reform on Tuesday, with representatives from every party bar Fine gael.

....and Sinn Fein.

The_Minister wrote: »

As mentioned in another thread, the Liberal Society are having a debate on Oireachtas reform on Tuesday, with representatives from every party bar Fine gael.
The event will be chaired by Tom Clonan ("If Lynch had invaded") and speakers include former Minister for Finance Ruairí Quinn TD, Minister of State for European Affairs Dick Roche, former Tainaiste Michael McDowell, and Senator Dan Boyle. Details here.


I was wondering what people here think about Oireachtas reform?
Many people have called for the Dail to be shrunk down to 100 or so, and the Seanad to be abolished, but I disagree with this.

I think the first thing that has to be done is to seperate out the legislature from the executive. The Taoiseach should be allowed to nominate who he wants to a particular ministry, and then have the Dail endorse them.
This would mean that:
(1) We could have actual accountability, as they could be fired/made resign and there would be no question of where the replacement would come from. Also, they would have no seperate mandate and could be forced to leave public life altogether for misbehaviour.

(2)That the pool of candidates would be far wider than before - America's equivalent of the Minister for Environment is a Nobel prize-winner because Obama wasn't stuck appointing people from the pool of elected representatives.

(3) Ministries would no longer be doled out on a geographical basis - as Ministers would no longer have to seek reelection, they would not have to divert resources on a disproportionate basis to their constituency.

(4) Ministers could work full-time at their brief and would not have to keep running back to their constituency to get votes.

(5) Ministers could be judged solely on their achievements while in office, and the situation where an awful Minister could be kept in place due to the fact that he was a big vote-getter would be gone.

What would be the first Oireachtas reform that you would put in place?

Who exactly are the Liberal Society? I mean who is behind it? I know it's a public advocacy group etc. etc. but who's financing this thing, paying the bills like and who's steering it? I've heard it's an element of the former PDs rising from the ashes and with the inclusion of McDowell you certainly can't shake the association there.

What other policies have the Liberals got if any or what policies else beside unelected ministers have ye got? What is your view on bank bailouts, social welfare, ministerial cars and pensions, the HSE etc.
Ye are very sketchy on details tbh.

Butch Cassidy

Is financing of political parties and donations on the agenda here?

Last year was a year with a local election, Euro election and a referendum on Lisbon and the three largest parties disclosed how much money donated to them? Answer: nil. http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/AnnualDisclosures/Disclosureofdonationsbyanindividualdonor/ Of course it's only donations of over €5,078.95 that are required to be disclosed.


Some kinda of accountability of elected representatives would be another issue surely. All too often parties publish manifestos with a list of various promises and ideas and there's feck all comeback for the people if/when these promises are reneged on.

Butch Cassidy

bryanw wrote: »

This party whip system is ridiculous alright, in that it basically means that the government can ram through legislation, but I would not be in favour of forcing people to not to associate to parties. It's up to the individual whether to follow the whip or to break ranks.

Introducing reforms so that TDs do what they're supposed to do is not forcing people to not associate - that's a bit of obsfucation there if you ask me anyway. TDs are elected to represent people on a national level on national issues not on local issues about dog poo outside someone's house or some rowdy neighbour having a party of a weekend.

It's up to the individual? Eh clearly it's not because they all follow the whip anyway and anyone who doesn't is whipped out of the party!

Laminations

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

The whip system is an affront to democracy really and it gives you bloody bizarre incidents like Paul Gogarty saying he doesn't believe in what he's voting for but he'll take it on the chin anyway and lose his seat.

The whip system did not lead to that, Gogartys lack of integrity led to that. He still had a choice, he chose to tow the party line at the expense of his constituents, the general electorate and his conscience. He should most definitely lose his seat for that

Re the topic, there needs to be a clear separation of national and local government, a reduction in the number of public representatives and councils and some degree of freedom to raise revenue locally

whatawaster

I would like to see something like the following:

Dail

50% elected representatives, 50% party lists

Elected representatives – I’d like to see 1 elected TD per 100,000 people approximately. This would mean around 45 elected representatives. Much larger constituencies – split the country into maybe 10 regions, and elect 4/5 TDs per region.

Based on the national split of party vote, the same number would also be selected via a list.

This would mean around 90 TDs. A good number, I think.

Cut TD’s salaries by 5% a year for the next 4 years.
Change their salaries so it’s based on attendance in the Dail. Watching the no-confidence debate recently was shocking. 90% of TDs only wait around for their own party leader to speak and then they dash off. Even Cowen left at one stage. It’s a disgrace. How many of them made their way to the bar? They should be paid a salary, from which we should deduct uncertified time away. They should have to clock in and out of the Dail chamber. All TDs should be expected to sit for a certain number of hours each week. Expenses should be limited and must all be vouched.

Senate

I’d like to see this made up of around 40/50 members.

Half of it from the party list system, based on the national split of party vote, as above.
Half of it made up of “experts” from different fields. Try and keep the appointments as non-political as possible – ie: the government have no say in these selections.
Economists, Environmental experts, Scientists, etc.

They should have some power to block/delay Dail legislation. Maybe 66% or 75% of the senate vote is needed to do so.

I’d like to limit the number of terms senators can sit for also.
No candidate who fails to be elected in the Dail elections can be selected via a list for either the Dail or the Senate for longer than one term.

Local Government

Regional councils based on the 10 or so Dail constituencies. Each represent between 400,000 – 500,000 people and should have between 40-50 members. Each should be paid modest salaries and allowed basic expenses. Smaller local and town councils beneath them with obviously less powers.

The_Minister

whatawaster wrote: »

Based on the national split of party vote, the same number would also be selected via a list.

This would mean around 90 TDs. A good number, I think.

Except that that would mean that (really) a government would be formed with about 47-50 TDs, and from that you have to find the 15 ministers, various ministers for state and committee chairs.

If you don't seperate out the legislature and executive as in the OP, then any reduction in TD numbers will lead to a lower standard of minister, as the candidate pool will be shrunk as well.

whatawaster

The_Minister wrote: »

Except that that would mean that (really) a government would be formed with about 47-50 TDs, and from that you have to find the 15 ministers, various ministers for state and committee chairs.

If you don't seperate out the legislature and executive as in the OP, then any reduction in TD numbers will lead to a lower standard of minister, as the candidate pool will be shrunk as well.

Firstly, I think there are far too many ministers for state anyway, so cuts could be made there.
Secondly, ministers could, and imo should, be drawn from both houses, and particularly from the non-party “experts” I’d like to see involved in the Senate.

bryanw

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Who exactly are the Liberal Society? I mean who is behind it? I know it's a public advocacy group etc. etc. but who's financing this thing, paying the bills like and who's steering it? I've heard it's an element of the former PDs rising from the ashes and with the inclusion of McDowell you certainly can't shake the association there.

McDowell is an invite as are all of the other speakers. Finance is being provided by the members for the debate and, be assured, spending is prudent.

Butch Cassidy wrote:

What other policies have the Liberals got if any or what policies else beside unelected ministers have ye got? What is your view on bank bailouts, social welfare, ministerial cars and pensions, the HSE etc.
Ye are very sketchy on details tbh.

The Liberals are in favour of promoting liberal views and values. We believe the government has to reign in public spending on Anglo and INBS and allow the people to have a say similar to Iceland. Ministerial cars are an unnecessary frill in a small country and its wrong that pensions can be received before retirement age by some and not others. The Liberals wish to promote active citizenship, respect for individual liberties and to give power back to the people through political reform. This would include teaching of civics in school, as this is a bit hit and miss these days.

bryanw

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Introducing reforms so that TDs do what they're supposed to do is not forcing people to not associate - that's a bit of obsfucation there if you ask me anyway. TDs are elected to represent people on a national level on national issues not on local issues about dog poo outside someone's house or some rowdy neighbour having a party of a weekend.

It's up to the individual? Eh clearly it's not because they all follow the whip anyway and anyone who doesn't is whipped out of the party!

Technically it is. But to be a member of a party (which one may so choose to do) is a freedom that should remain. It is also a freedom for the party to impose a whip. You can vote for an independent if you don't like party whips.

hadit2here

Looks like they are not even going ahead with the clock system in the Dail ... Rolling back on it ...


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politicians-will-collect-expenses-without-clocking-in-123551.html

Somehow I am not surprised .... at some stage the Irish will just vote for extreme candidates (out of frustration)