Would You Be In Favour Of A Complete Re-Structure In Irish Politics

As long as there is a whip system we are not represented and democracy here is a show trial. That alone is the most important change. Were I to be really radical I would suggest:


A Taoiseach should not position ministers. The people vote on election day for a Taoiseach (like how a president is elected) and to further that the people should elect all ministries or at the very least a Taoiseach and the minister for finance.

These changes would eliminate party politics & parish pump nonsense immediately.
Also Eliminate the presidency and the seanad

Pete_Cavan

mdebets wrote: »

That's not going to work. There are too many countries out there who are much more cheaper than Ireland, no matter how low the Irish costs will be cut.
The only way for Ireland to prosper is to work towards an environment, where employers are willing to pay a premium on cost (e.g. well educated workforce, Universities that drive innovations, leadership in technology, etc.)

I was not talking about challenging the Chinese in terms of low cost manufacturing. We are not the only country with a well educated workforce and we are far from drives of innovation or leaders in technology. The main reason MNCs are here is because we have a balance between these and lower costs, ie. low corporation tax. If we lower our labour costs we would attract more MNCs as well as attracting more visitor, aiding another of our main industries, tourism. Other countries can compete with us in terms of a well educated workforce, in which case employers will not be willing to pay a premium. We absolutely must lower our labour costs if we are to prosper.

mdebets

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I was not talking about challenging the Chinese in terms of low cost manufacturing. We are not the only country with a well educated workforce and we are far from drives of innovation or leaders in technology. The main reason MNCs are here is because we have a balance between these and lower costs, ie. low corporation tax. If we lower our labour costs we would attract more MNCs as well as attracting more visitor, aiding another of our main industries, tourism. Other countries can compete with us in terms of a well educated workforce, in which case employers will not be willing to pay a premium. We absolutely must lower our labour costs if we are to prosper.

That's a fallacy to believe. In your example, the only differentiator between Ireland and other countries would be the labour cost. If you do this, you can only progress downwards. And there is always someone who is lower priced (and if you compete on price you will always compete against China or India or any of the other low priced countries, if you want to or not). And if you go too low, your workforce will emigrate.

The only way forward is that Ireland needs to diversify itself from other countries. It could for example do that by investing heavily in research in a few areas of technology, where ireland could become leading and therefore would atract companies in these area (foreign and irish) who would be willing to pay premiums (because they couldn't fin the expertice somewhere else)

Liam Byrne

Denerick wrote: »

We're all cute whoors at the end of day

I've promised in good faith not to argue that point in relation to who got greedy and who is responsible, but I don't think that covers new false accusations.

Speak for yourself if you want to.

DO NOT slander the many decent people in this country who despise this type of bull****.

mdebets

Deleted User wrote: »

As long as there is a whip system we are not represented and democracy here is a show trial. That alone is the most important change. Were I to be really radical I would suggest:


A Taoiseach should not position ministers. The people vote on election day for a Taoiseach (like how a president is elected) and to further that the people should elect all ministries or at the very least a Taoiseach and the minister for finance.

These changes would eliminate party politics & parish pump nonsense immediately.
Also Eliminate the presidency and the seanad

I do think these suggestions would make Irish politics even worse than it is now.

An abolishment of the whip would increase parish pump nonsense hundred-fold. For each ne legislation or even for each vote in parliament you would now have to find a new majority. Imagine you would have demands from each TD for each vote. The one wants a new hospital in his constituancy, the other wants a more leniant blood alcohol level, because he is a publican, and so on and on. It would be very unmanageable.

If you vote for the Taoiseach and his ministers seperately or even only for the Taoiseach, you would have a high likelyhood of a stalemate. Look at the US what happens when the House or the Senead are opposed to the President. Legislation gets blocked or watered down, do you really want that. The only way to govern a country efficiently is to have the government and the parliament from the same party or coalition.

Amhran Nua

namloc1980 wrote: »

The average per the CSO is c.€36k p.a. so a TD would earn €54k, a Minister €67.5k and the Taoiseach €84k. Do you think these sort of wages would attract the type of people our politics badly needs?

Do we want the kind of people who are attracted to the position primarily for financial remuneration?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

[/LIST]
We need to reduce our labour costs in this country and become a low cost economy if we are to prosper.

No, labour costs are a marginal issue for most of the FDI that comes to Ireland, and we should work on domestic industries that copy this example. We need to focus on increasing the size and spending power of the middle class, such as it is. Poor people have no money to spend and rich people didn't get that way by spending lots of money.

Kaysen Tinkling Optometry wrote: »

and are a safeguard against poor legislation being rushed into statute.

When did they last provide a check or balance against poor legislation being put through, specifically?

Amhran Nua

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Do we want the kind of people who are attracted to the position primarily for financial remuneration?

Well, considering the qualifications needed for political office in this country the figures listed by namloc1980 are reasonable (although I'd be interested in performance related measures in place to punish/reward them for stupidity/success). With a CEO of a company there would be the requirement of vast experience and proven success in their field. Even if they were moving into an unfamiliar field/industry, they would have the skills proved over time to get the job done. So a CEO, CFO or such in the private sector would have proven potential to get the work done properly, and thus be worth the cost.

Alas the requirements for our political offices are rather on the low side in comparison.

Anyone know what Brian Cowen earned before he entered politics?

When did they last provide a check or balance against poor legislation being put through, specifically?

Spot on. I'm also curious about this.

Amhran Nua

Deleted User wrote: »

So a CEO, CFO or such in the private sector would have proven potential to get the work done properly, and thus be worth the cost.

Of course, but that's all relevant to profit margins and increasing them, which is the point of a corporation. In itself it almost enhances the value of the company - if we can pay our CEO this much, imagine how well we must be doing.

While balancing the books for a country is pretty important, you can't run it in the same way, or with the same assumed goals. I don't see any harm in emphasising this by ensuring that even leaders of the state receive a reasonable enough remuneration package, and by tying this to average (or even better median) wage, you help to ensure that the greater good of the economy and country as a whole is served.

This has large implications, but one immediate benefit is that even in the worst case scenario, if you do get a self serving mé féiner as leader, he or she cannot help but better the situation of the country in order to better their own situation.

Eliot Rosewater

mdebets wrote: »

Look at the US what happens when the House or the Senead are opposed to the President. Legislation gets blocked or watered down, do you really want that.

Erm, yes?! In my opinion, one of the causes of the present crisis is the ability of the PM of this country to do, basically, whatever he wants. Throughout the 2000s Bertie Ahern published many freebie budgets that, in the long term, have been proven to be completely unsustainable. There was no means to stop him: a combination of the whip system, his control of the Dail and the lack of power of the Seanad and the Presidency all reconciled his power. The current Irish political system is about as tyrannical as it could be while still being actually democratic.


There are multiple solutions, but I'm unsure of which one I prefer. You could introduce a list system for the Dail, and have an election every 4 years. For simplicity's sake, the election for President (the office would stay roughly the same) could be held at the same time. There would then be a direct election for Taoiseach, held halfway through the Dail term. As per John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, the supreme power of the country would lie in the legislature but the executive would, naturally, provide some checks on it.

I would be in favour of devolving more power to local bodies. This would provide a major check on the federal government. You could abolish the Seanad or keep it as a "council of States" tasked with representing each State of the federation, in a similar vein to the US Senate or the EU Council of Ministers. I don't know if this would be necessary in as small a country as Ireland.


In any case, I think in designing a new system of government for Ireland one's inspiration shouldn't be drawn from the current system which, in my humble opinion, is completely inadequate. A better template might be the United States.

Lockstep

+1 Eliot.

I like the idea of the Senate being replaced with a new body, perhaps with 15 representatives from each of the European constituencies (Connaunt-Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Dublin maybe) with more powers than the useless Senate.

I also support devolution of powers. I appreciate we're a tiny nation but the centralization we have isn't very healthy.

Used to be dead against a party-list system but lately I've been warming to the idea.

Denerick

I've always been skeptical about a strong executive - in America it makes sense to have the President with broad autonomy in foreign affairs but for a small island nation like Ireland our foreign policy is pretty much irrelevant. Obama makes the great world spin, Mc Aleese turns up for Paddys day and does the whole diddly aye act.

I think a strong parliamentary system that attracts people of conviction is the best alternative. Something like the ancient Roman ideal. Virtue built upon honour. I say ideal because the Ancient Roman Republic was in actuality a corrupt quagmire, but alas.

Amhran Nua

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Of course, but that's all relevant to profit margins and increasing them, which is the point of a corporation. In itself it almost enhances the value of the company - if we can pay our CEO this much, imagine how well we must be doing.

Yes, in part. But how many companies hire directors missing the relevant qualifications and experience? And then believe them worth the industry standard, or more? - Not many, because they wouldn't last very long as companies.

While balancing the books for a country is pretty important, you can't run it in the same way, or with the same assumed goals. I don't see any harm in emphasising this by ensuring that even leaders of the state receive a reasonable enough remuneration package, and by tying this to average (or even better median) wage, you help to ensure that the greater good of the economy and country as a whole is served.

I'm not expecting the country to be run the same way as a company or corporation. Obviously, that would be dangerous for everyone concerned.

However, I see very little reason for the current set of salaries for our politicians. Frankly, it doesn't make sense on any level. They're not meeting the basic requirements of their positions (when was the last time you saw the Dail even half-filled for a regular session?). The government has shown an inability to report honestly to the people (its shareholders) on the status of the country, and moreso are willing to lie about the state of affairs to cover up mistakes. Hell, never mind the corruption that rests between our politicians, property developers, and the banks.

All in all, I have to wonder why our politicians are earning such amounts. Its not as if they have earned them. Let future politicians earn increased amounts if the country has performed well enough to warrant it. But they should be reviewed annually in consideration to the state of the economy/country by independent sources.

This has large implications, but one immediate benefit is that even in the worst case scenario, if you do get a self serving mé féiner as leader, he or she cannot help but better the situation of the country in order to better their own situation.

I totally agree with you on this.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I would be in favour of devolving more power to local bodies.

Only insofar as it reduces the focus of TDs on the local level. I'm not overall in favour of allowing local authorities to have full or even majority control over raising revenue in their area, since these entities have no incentive to consider the national level issues, and so might pursue policies counterproductive to these considerations en masse.

Most concerns people have locally would not have a massive impact on local budgets however (fixing fences and pot holes, that sort of thing), allowing scope for both national directives and local issues to be resolved simultaneously. Something like direct democracy on the local level might be of value given that - its worth noting that most of the few countries that also use the STV system only use it for their local elections, not national elections like us.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A better template might be the United States.

Why would we want the same system that put GW Bush into power for two consecutive terms, here.

Deleted User wrote:

However, I see very little reason for the current set of salaries for our politicians. Frankly, it doesn't make sense on any level.

I see no point of disagreement between us.

FoxT

I think the following should be examined:

Keep PR & multiseat constituencies. Otherwise the electorate will be Gerrymandered into oblivion.

Reduce no. of TDs by 50%

Keep the seanad, but all seats elected in the same way dail seats are.

Develop meaningful local authorities (somehow) , elections every 2 years for 50% of the councillors.(More PR)

Possibly 1 authority per province, or similar. They should be funded via a universal property tax.

Education, Health, defence,justice, foreign affairs, the prerogative of central govt. local authorities do everything else.

Legislate/regulate parish pump politics out of existence - thats what the local/provincial councils will be for.

Establish a specialist group of economists in the dept of finance.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Amhran Nua wrote: »

When did they last provide a check or balance against poor legislation being put through, specifically?

I believe the last outright disapproval was in 1964. However have a read of this:
http://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?gid=2010-07-13.264.0
and consider the fact that they (successfully) suggest many amendments to bills before they are passed.

ISAW

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

...Dublin where we have four councils who think they are competing against each other and are actually hampering the development of the city.

We do need to restructure our system of local government but I dont think it should be done along provincial lines ...What we need is ~8 regional councils which would be cheaper to run and would see investment focused on the most important infrastructure in the region

in effect this will have to happen. there are regional councils already but they have no real power. It will have to happen because we are a net contributor to the EU. If however we restructure the poorer regions of Ireland can still get EU funding for them.

ISAW

Kaysen Tinkling Optometry wrote: »

Why is everyone hellbent on abolishing the seanad?

They provide expert recommendations to the dail who for the most part haven't got a clue as half of them are school teachers etc. and are a safeguard against poor legislation being rushed into statute.

Indeed of the top of my head I believe there were over 150 ammendments to the Education Bill and to the Disability Bill in the last Seanad. the congress and senate in the US has a similar amalgam of Bills where finance acts can come from either house and get trashed out. The Seanad does not have that level of power.

ISAW

gandalf wrote: »

To be fair I plucked those numbers out of my head. I think we are all in agreement that the current level of remuneration is far too high especially with lack of responsibility and accountability for their actions.

But this isnt the fault of politicians! It is the fault of unions for senior ranking public servants! For ever TD or Senator there is at least ten times as many senior admin on the same whack! And they are unsackable! Even less accountability then elected politicians for whom you can chose not to vote. They (unions) even nominate people to the senate!

So if you want to change things you have to take on unions and social partners. ~What political party has the guts to do that?

Amhran Nua

Kaysen Tinkling Optometry wrote: »

I believe the last outright disapproval was in 1964.

Can you clarify, what is "disapproval", what does that mean in this context?

ISAW wrote: »

And they are were unsackable!

Amended that to reflect current events.

ISAW

SkepticOne wrote: »

I would agree with a lot of what has been suggested on this thread. I think the core reforms should be:

all your reform is about electoral system reform. It may be fo some benefit but it is fiddling really. You will end up with much the same. Less TD doing more legislation and less constituency work and constant change of TDs and lack of continuity at local level.

How about actually changing the system!

Directly elect the Taoiseach and let him/her chose whoever they want as ministers ( whether they are elected or not). If a TD or Senator is made a minister then you have a by election (or a co opted nominee) to fill their place.

That Dail and Seanad then can have the Ministers come to them or to sub committees and hold the Minister ( or the Humphry Appleby senior admin) to account. Ministers can be appointed or sacked by the Taoiseach. the Taoiseach can only be sacked by something like a two thirds vote of the Dail.

change the election system for the Seanad.

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

So if you want to change things you have to take on unions and social partners. ~What political party has the guts to do that?

Part of the problem, don't you think? Their job is to run the country. Not to be so bloody "political". God knows, they're not afraid of ignoring the people of Ireland when it suits them.

Pete_Cavan

I know this is off topic but I felt it necessary to reply;

mdebets wrote: »

That's a fallacy to believe. In your example, the only differentiator between Ireland and other countries would be the labour cost. If you do this, you can only progress downwards. And there is always someone who is lower priced (and if you compete on price you will always compete against China or India or any of the other low priced countries, if you want to or not). And if you go too low, your workforce will emigrate.

The only way forward is that Ireland needs to diversify itself from other countries. It could for example do that by investing heavily in research in a few areas of technology, where ireland could become leading and therefore would atract companies in these area (foreign and irish) who would be willing to pay premiums (because they couldn't fin the expertice somewhere else)

Other countries can invest heavily in research in a few areas of technology as well you know, and if they have cheaper labour costs then they will take the FDI from us. We must diversify and invest heavily in research but above all, we must remain competitive in terms of cost. There is no reason why in 10 years time there wont be 10 other countries with as much skilled workers and experience as us, in which case no one would be willing to pay a premium to operate here. Our low rare of corporation tax is what sets us apart at the minute, but we have very little scope to reduce it any further. Most other countries have no restrictions in terms of how low they set their corporation tax so it is vital we keep our labours costs down.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, labour costs are a marginal issue for most of the FDI that comes to Ireland, and we should work on domestic industries that copy this example. We need to focus on increasing the size and spending power of the middle class, such as it is. Poor people have no money to spend and rich people didn't get that way by spending lots of money.

Increasing the size and spending power of the middle class does not necessarily mean increasing wages. If our labour costs decreased across the board so would the cost of living, meaning you would have as much spending power even if you have less money (i.e. you can buy more goods and services for less). Also lower labour costs makes it easier to start up new businesses and allows businesses to grow quicker. The main reason we can not build up domestic industries is because the cost of doing here is much greater than most other countries meaning we can not compete internationally. Our only domestic industry that competes internationally, agriculture, is heavily subsidised, mainly from abroad. And again, lets not forget our tourism industry, which is extremely important to our economy, better value for money here would bring in more visitors, who bring in more money.

All of the major economies with the power to do so are devaluing their currencies, making it cheaper to do business in their country. We do not have this option (which is a good thing IMO) so we can not join in on this race to the bottom. Therefore we must find other ways to become a low cost economy or else we will be left behind.

storker

namloc1980 wrote: »

The average per the CSO is c.€36k p.a. so a TD would earn €54k, a Minister €67.5k and the Taoiseach €84k. Do you think these sort of wages would attract the type of people our politics badly needs?

It would at least have the benefit of repelling the ones we've got...



Stork

oncevotedff

mdebets wrote: »

That's not going to work. There are too many countries out there who are much more cheaper than Ireland, no matter how low the Irish costs will be cut.
The only way for Ireland to prosper is to work towards an environment, where employers are willing to pay a premium on cost (e.g. well educated workforce, Universities that drive innovations, leadership in technology, etc.)

To that we need to stop our graduates from heading to the nearest airport as soon as they receive their degree. We'd also need to revamp our education system to reduce the number of useful arts graduates and replace them with science and engineering types. Ultimately though we need to do away with our dependence on foreign companies providing huge employment.

oncevotedff

Kaysen Tinkling Optometry wrote: »

Why is everyone hellbent on abolishing the seanad?

Because it serves no useful function.

thetonynator

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

The kind of restructuring I'd support would be reducing the number of TD's and abolishing the Seanad and maybe PR, and also cutting these fool's expenses by 90%. If they want to go down to Ballygobackwards to open a door in a new off licence for deh pahrty fatefull, they can drive themselves, and hopefully contribute to road accident statistics in the process.

A bit harsh!!!

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Makes no sense. We need to get further away from parish pumps, not closer to them.

Your suggestion would also cause massive imbalance and competition; it's bad enough that DAA undermined Shannon as it did without giving the regions an official sanction to "compete".

Also, the logistic are all wrong; "Ulster" would have just 3 counties, Munster would have 3 separate cities, while Leinster would have 2 cities and Connaught kinda one-and-a-half (sorry Sligo residents).

Part of me once wished that Munster was separate from Dublin, since Dublin seems so out of touch with real life; that's still true, but there's a massive amount of political reform required before we'd even consider giving the localised version of the gombeen men more power.

The restructure that we need is to have between 75 & 100 TDs, all answerable and accountable re targets that they set in their manifesto, that can be fired if, say, 2 out of 3 of those targets aren't met, or if they are shown to have done anything "unbecoming the position of TD" (not given a 20 day paid holiday and then welcomed back with nods and winks)

I'm still trying to find a second city in Leinster . . .???



1. Abolish the seanad.

2. Change the constituencies to the MEP ones, 25 seats in each to get rid of parochial politics.

3. How about basic bay - something around 60k for a TD, 75k for a minister etc., but with possible bonuses for actually balancing the budget?? Maybe paid 2 years afterwards to make sure they haven't made a balls of it!!

4. More responsibilities for the President.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Can you clarify, what is "disapproval", what does that mean in this context?

They can't veto bills, only delay their coming into statute while trying to determine appropriate amendments. This usually involves negotiating behind the scenes with the government minister responsible for pushing the bill through. If that government minister is particularly dense and decides not to listen to the seanad's recommendations the bill will eventually pass (as long as the dail is happy with it - they might not be, but due to collective authority rules would have to vote to pass it anyway).

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

I've always been skeptical about a strong executive

Yeah, I'm not sure that a strong executive is best for such a small country either. Also I think the PMs Questions sessions in the UK are brilliant, and provide great accountability, and if we were to develop the great parliamentary culture they have in the UK it would be worth keeping the current method of electing the Taoiseach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMq_BOF7f7s (Nick Clegg gets burned about the 3 minute mark by a comparison between the Lib Dems going in with the Tories and sleeping around on freshers' week.)

Denerick wrote: »

I think a strong parliamentary system that attracts people of conviction is the best alternative.

It's hard to change cultures though. I'll nominate you for the Dail if you want though.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I'm not overall in favour of allowing local authorities to have full or even majority control over raising revenue in their area, since these entities have no incentive to consider the national level issues

That's exactly the point. The regional parliaments would be for regional issues. One could devise a competency system to determine what they can and cannot do, and I would be in favour of giving them power to tax. That way at least people will see how their money is being spent closer to home.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why would we want the same system that put GW Bush into power for two consecutive terms, here.

The people (and the states) wanted GW Bush, and they got him. I don't see how that reflects on the American system of government at all. In fact, if GW Bush was PM of Ireland he could have done a lot worse. At least in the States there were obstacles to him.

thetonynator

thetonynator wrote: »

3. How about basic bay - something around 60k for a TD, 75k for a minister etc., but with possible bonuses for actually balancing the budget?? Maybe paid 2 years afterwards to make sure they haven't made a balls of it!!

How about 40k for a TD (similar to managerial positions in Business), 55k for a minister, and the next reaching a ceiling of 70k? Unless we're going to remove all those lovely "little" benefits which drastically increase the value of the position. I really don't know why posters keep overlooking the benefits involved with these positions. Between high pensions, long holidays (with pay), expenses, exemptions from certain rates, etc these positions are gold dust in comparison to the duties involved.

Even with the above, they would still be earning more than a large portion of people in this country in full time employment!!

I worked 13 years in credit control, finally becoming a Credit Control Manager in a decent sized company. The salary ceiling for my position was €45k with some slight benefits (4 years ago). So I'm a bit bemused that these people warrant high salaries... and for what?

I have yet to hear a set of reasonable arguments why they should be paid higher amounts... With the exception of that we need to offer high amounts to get skilled politicians... and yet, we're not getting particularly skilled politicians.. despite the high amounts being paid.

mikemac

thetonynator wrote: »

I'm still trying to find a second city in Leinster . . .???

Kilkenny