What Sort Of Political Reform Would You Be In Favour Of ?

Am Chile

Some people might say the Irish Political system needs to changed and reformed I tend to be of the same view, if you re in favour of poltical reform what type of reform would you be in favour of ? Id be in favour of seeing the following changes to the Irish poltical system, feel free to discuss and agree or disagree and put your own ideas forward

1 Id like to see Swiss style Referendums like they have in Switzerland, it would give people a direct say in certain issues, paying back unsecured bondholders/bailing out banks/ private property rights issues, ie property tax.

In Switzerland Swiss voters can demand a binding referendum at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life. It is not the government's choice whether or when a referendum is held, but it is a legal procedure regulated by the Swiss constitution. There are two types of referendums:
Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are ongoing in nature, or any change to Swiss law may be subject to referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days. Within cantons and municipalities, the required number of people is smaller, and there may be additional causes for a facultative referendum, e.g., expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative referendum is the most common type of referendum, and it is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland

2 Seanad reform senators should be directly elected by the people.

3 In local elections mayors should be directly elected by the people providing they have served on the local council.

4 Recall elections, if people aren,t happy with the performance of someone or if an elected official breaks enough pre election promises, or in the current Mick Wallace situation if a scandal arises about an elected official there should be a recall election and leave the people decide if they still want that person to represent their constituency or not.

john47

Hopefully we can keep the thread from going down the lines of sack half the TD's, get rid of Mick Wallace (although I love the idea), hang them from lamp posts, cut the allowances - all these ideas of been discussed at length.

The political reform needs to be lead by those things that we need to refomr in the whole country, I dont think we can have one without the other. So we need elected representatives to change the way they think and change the country too. That can only be done with pressure from the electorate. We live in a republic - ie we elect people to represent us - we couldnt have a true democracy where every single decision is made by the whole country - have elections, referendas etc every week. No, that will not work.


So, what to change...

For starters I dont believe we should copy other countries, let them be switzerland or where ever - if you like the way those countries are ran soooooo well, move there. Now, yes we could look to see what some countries do well and see will it work for us. Hopefully the Obama-care will work and Ireland could take the best ideas to try and sort out a universal health care system here. So that's my no. 1 - A universal healthcare system. That of course will change how hospitals work, ho the minister for health will do their job and will change how public money is being spent in our hospitals. In a way, the more you think of it, if everyone pays into a universal health care system and has a say in how that money is being spent we could just get rid of the Minister for Health - that would be some political reform...

Or justice system is based on archiac English common laws and Victorian laws. We need to change that. Prisoners are still slopping out in Mountjoy - if you dont know what "slopping out" is check it out! - but in saying that prisoners also have TV's in their cells and get cigarettes so that would be my no. 2- reform our justice system. Changing the system might also allow us to start jailing those elected officials that break the law (and of course are proven guilty by a court of law not a boards thread or the Matt Cooper show)

We have been educating children in the same way now for about 100 years, well we dont have hedge schools anymore and we need to start teaching rather than between a combination of crowd control and learning by rote to pass exams, chaldren need to be taught how to get by, how to hold down a job and to think for themselves - so thats no. 3 - reform the education system. Invlude in that a class on politics, public life etc. Teach children about voting, about changing the way we do things, about making up their own minds not just voting for a party because their parents do. Teaching children to think for themselves might generate more change than anything else.

Now, I'll get off my soap box.

John ryan

gandalf

Posted on this subject in a thread around 2 years ago. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056094840

This is what I said then and it is still how I feel we should reform our political system.

Yes the political system needs a total over haul.

These are the steps I would take.

• Abolish the Seanad (or at worst have it totally directly elected with the elections occurring two years after the general election to provide a check and balance for the Dail).
• Reduce the number of TD's to around 100.
• The elections for the Dail to be fulfilled against a total list system.
• Maximum term in office of 3 Dails for all TD's.
• TD's only allowed to deal with national issues.
• If a TD stands down or dies his party replaces them with the next person on the list submitted before the last general election avoiding by-elections.
• TD's pay fixed at 50% above the average wage, Ministers at 25% above TD's wages and the Taoiseach at 25% above Ministers.
• Any state employees that become a TD will have to relinquish their position so it becomes available to a full time employee to fill.
• Dail Holidays reduced to 1 month in the summer, a week at Christmas and 10 working days for the rest of the year.
• Pensions only become active at retirement age and only one can be held.
• Reduce the number of councils to around 5 or 6.
• Councillors to become fulltime paid positions at average wage levels.
• Council elections to occur every two years.
• All political positions subject to a vouched expense scheme with full receipts required.

Sully

Three brief points anyway for me, of the cuff.

- I'd reform the expenses regime, cutting out a lot of what you can claim. In addition, I would make it more transparent with every detail being published quarterly. Allow full FOI on expenses. Its our money. I do believe that a good wage and expenses should be given.

- Allow more TDs have speaking time in the Dail. Regardless of the side of the house you are on.

- Reform the Seanad and prevent the current abuse where failed politicians are put in their to raise the profile. Some are genuine, some just do it as a stepping stone.

gandalf

Sully wrote: »

Three brief points anyway for me, of the cuff.

- I'd reform the expenses regime, cutting out a lot of what you can claim. In addition, I would make it more transparent with every detail being published quarterly. Allow full FOI on expenses. Its our money. I do believe that a good wage and expenses should be given.

Yep totally vouched and published, no more ambiguous allowances.

- Allow more TDs have speaking time in the Dail. Regardless of the side of the house you are on.

With less TD's and longer attendances this definitely should be the case.

- Reform the Seanad and prevent the current abuse where failed politicians are put in their to raise the profile. Some are genuine, some just do it as a stepping stone.

Or as a retirement home for Politicians as well, remember Mary O'Rourke!

GarIT

All ministers should have a minimum of a masters degree in the relevant area so we don't end up with someone completely unqualified running a certain area. Like in previous years a lawyer running the economy and teachers running the dept of health. Keep people in the area they know and things might work better.

poeticseraphim

Stringent anti-corruption laws with strong enforcement.

Strict regulation of loans to politicans and political parties and strict regulation of donations.


A background in the Area of ministry in perhaps the private sector or a masters but preferably with private sector experience should be madatory.

Outsourcing for political parties...it seems so incestous.

Fewer councillors and for a cut down on the noof local councils.

A thorough breakdown of each council's budget.

Stricter laws on the moral conduct of politicans.


Freer objective media reporting ( i consider this political reform as it is a part of politcal life

More transparency.

Reform on salaries and pensions for politicians ..it is not in line with the rest of Europe..

To be honest i would be happy if we could be tough on law and order in Irish politics and enforce regulation and accountability.

KyussBishop

Ya Swiss style referendums are interesting, read up on them recently; overall they seem very good, but sometimes they result in quite stupid policies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland

Overall though, I'd be in favour of that style of referenda.


A reform I'd very much like to see, would be greater transparency within all levels of government; the cost of publishing information today is so low due to the internet, there's not really an excuse not to.

Some areas where this could be directly applied:
- Record of meetings for all TD's (including minutes/recordings of meetings); public by default, requiring special permission to prevent publication, and where publication is prevented, who the meeting was with must still be disclosed.

- Full tax history of all TD's made public, and full disclosure of all earnings while in office (maybe some privacy concerns here, but I think a member of public office should be ready to cede some)

- Full disclosure of all planning permissions online, and an interface for viewing them in detail (a simple google maps overlay even); any that haven't been declared in this repository (and open to contest for a period), are invalid

- Rollback data retention laws for journalistic/publishing websites (preferably just get rid of data retention; am focusing on this specific case though), so journalist/whistleblower outlets can't be injuncted to identify whistleblowers

There are likely far more areas where this could be applied, that I haven't thought of; this is a pretty small list.


Would also support severe limitations on (or abolishment of) statutory instruments, or at least have a workable way to contest them.


Also, one of the bigger things that reform will not necessarily solve, is the selective enforcement of laws; plenty of examples of preferential treatment or even outright selective enforcement (in favour of politicians or those with significant connections), for many illegal acts (tax fraud being very high among them).

Manach

As a classicist, I'd favour the Switz type referendums as a step in the right direction. Also, make the legal system more engaging to the public by making it easier to personally access. Finally, re-introduce the monarchy. Anyone named Prince Philip gets my vote.

john47

poeticseraphim wrote: »

A thorough breakdown of each council's budget.

This already exists, in about October/November every year the proposed budget for the following year is published, debated on and then the final budget is generally published at the start of December.

Then every summer an annual report is published of the previous years expenditure.

All of these budgets/reports are available for free, in your local offices, libraries & on each councils website.

JR

john47

KyussBishop wrote: »

- Record of meetings for all TD's (including minutes/recordings of meetings); public by default, requiring special permission to prevent publication, and where publication is prevented, who the meeting was with must still be disclosed.

- Full disclosure of all planning permissions online, and an interface for viewing them in detail (a simple google maps overlay even); any that haven't been declared in this repository (and open to contest for a period), are invalid

QUOTE]

I dont think everything in a meeting can be recorded. You could record Cllr Joe pointed his finger at Cllr Pat saying "your only a FF crony" and Cllr Pat replying "that's rubbish, I'm independant" etc...

Also do you record every word said over a pint in the pub!

Most County Councils have websites with a search-able planning section for all planning applications lodged! Also politicians must disclose all their interests at the moment

JR

KyussBishop

Ya true, planning seems to be well disclosed.

Any meetings a minister makes in an official capacity, or with interested lobby groups, would need to be disclosed; if this was an active requirement, then undisclosed ministerial meetings with interested parties, would be much more risky and journalistically significant.

It would still happen, but it would make it much more difficult, and hiding meetings with special lobbying interests (particularly paid lobbyists) would be difficult, as it would be easy to expose for even an amateur journalist.

So, having minutes or otherwise some recording of such meetings, and requiring their disclosure, would make lobbying much more transparent (and particularly the substance of the lobbying).

john47

Yes, there should be more transparency in regards to lobbying and that is why for years some parties have been looking for laws to show political donations and stop certian types of political donations and other parties (who had tents at the Galway Races) stopped it happening.

Lobbying will always happen, in fact sometimes it needs to happen more, that's what a democracy is, people and groups getting their message to the people in charge, it's a good thing but it needs to be transparent. Neither should it be up to the press which bits they publish or not. Their needs to be easy access tot he information. Imagine a TD only taking half their wage and plowing the rest of it back into their party, say somewhere between €35000-€50000. What are the doing with it, certainly not buying printer ink!

John Ryan

RHarrow

gandalf wrote: »

<Ideas>

I quite like your ideas gandalf, very reasonable, fair and workable.

I'm personally against the idea of direct democracy simply because it relies on an eager electorate. I don't want the fate of the country in the hands of people who aren't bothered reading the information distributed and instead their vote on referenda depends on how they're feeling that day or what scaremongering the anti-everything crowd have driven into them in the months leading to the referendum.

My biggest single issue with the current political system here is the party whip system and as such, I would love to see the following happen:
-Abolish the position of party whips
-Establish a government level whistle blowing entity
-Penalize any party found to be pressuring their members/tds/senators/etc to vote a certain way as reported by the aforementioned whistle blowing entity
-Make voting in the Dail both mandatory and anonymous. No more non-attendance, everyone is required to be present, votes are cast anonymously and the verdict is adhered to.

On top of this, I would like to see postering/canvassing/distributing leaflets/etc. by parties leading up to a referendum banned. Information should be produced centrally and objectively and can be given to the parties to distribute if they so wish, but I would like to see an end to the ridiculous campaigning by parties here on our lampposts and doorsteps.

Am Chile

RHarrow wrote: »

I quite like your ideas gandalf, very reasonable, fair and workable.

I'm personally against the idea of direct democracy simply because it relies on an eager electorate. I don't want the fate of the country in the hands of people who aren't bothered reading the information distributed and instead their vote on referenda depends on how they're feeling that day or what scaremongering the anti-everything crowd have driven into them in the months leading to the referendum.

My biggest single issue with the current political system here is the party whip system and as such, I would love to see the following happen:
-Abolish the position of party whips
-Establish a government level whistle blowing entity
-Penalize any party found to be pressuring their members/tds/senators/etc to vote a certain way as reported by the aforementioned whistle blowing entity
-Make voting in the Dail both mandatory and anonymous. No more non-attendance, everyone is required to be present, votes are cast anonymously and the verdict is adhered to.

On top of this, I would like to see postering/canvassing/distributing leaflets/etc. by parties leading up to a referendum banned. Information should be produced centrally and objectively and can be given to the parties to distribute if they so wish, but I would like to see an end to the ridiculous campaigning by parties here on our lampposts and doorsteps.

I agree with some of your post, re the party whip system should be abolished, I disagree with your view on direct democracy, certain issues people should have a direct say in, the bank bailout, repaying unsecured bondholders,abortion in certain circumstances re rape/incest/threat to the mothers life- and removing the blasphemy law from the Irish constitution, which we were promised a referendum on pre election which still hasn,t happened as of yet.

Count Dooku

allocate only 50% of seats in Dail for local populists and introduce list system for second half
should help against parish pump politics

KyussBishop

Cross-posting from another thread, highlighting an important referendum that failed:

murphaph wrote: »

Did we not have a referendum which would have allowed the Oireachtais greater powers of enquiry (akin to Westminster) which was rejected?

It may not have been perfect, but IMO it would have been a step in the right direction. If we don't have such commitees the we are left with tribunals of enquiry or the courts system.

Indeed; by all accounts, this should have passed, but because so little time was made available for public debate and publicizing between it being written up, and the referendum itself, it failed (by a small margin):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtieth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2011_%28Ireland%29


I suppose another obvious reform to come from this, is a 6 month to 1 year period between the finalization of the text for a referendum, for adequate publication and debate, before it is thrust upon the public.

Setting a hard time period wouldn't be a good idea (most referendums will probably have minor changes throughout public debates), but there aught to be some guidelines in place to ensure adequate publicity of referendum issues (and adequate spending/effort on spreading awareness), so people can't make the boneheaded decision of trying to steamroll important issues into a referendum, leading to their inevitable defeat when people don't have a clue what they are voting on.

Also, so that potentially damaging laws can't be steamrolled through, though that would be quite difficult.

Pete_Cavan

Am Chile wrote: »

1 Id like to see Swiss style Referendums like they have in Switzerland, it would give people a direct say in certain issues, paying back unsecured bondholders/bailing out banks/ private property rights issues, ie property tax.

You are assuming that, at the time, the people of this country would have voted against the bailout, which I dont believe to be true. Apart from Labour, all the main parties, including Sinn Fein, voted in favour of the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Bill 2008 in September 2008, and Labour only voted against it on a minor technical issue. Labours support wasnt needed for the Bill to pass so it gave them the opportunity to make a stand, had their support been needed I am sure they would have voted for it.

With the main political parties supporting the Bill for the "cheapest bailout in history", the true scale of the bank debts at the time unknown, everybody with deposits in Irish banks in favour of protecting their savings, businesses needing banks for cashflow, the lefties loving the idea of having a state owned bank and this having been the plan devised by golden boy McWilliams, I have no doubt that in this instance, direct democracy would have produced the same result.

If I told you we could introduce a tax that would disproportionately affect the wealthy more, would broaden the tax base, give a sustainable stream of income and discourage speculative property deals, everyone would be in favour, until they hear the words "property tax" and suddenly what was a great idea is an abomination. Even with direct democracy, people can reject what is good for them and approve what, in the long term, turns out to be very damaging.

Son Of A Vidic

john47 wrote: »

Hopefully we can keep the thread from going down the lines of sack half the TD's...

So can you justify why we need 166TD's? Amazingly enough, recommendations have been made that we 'significantly' reduce their numbers to 158. With a national population smaller than the city of Saint Petersburg(4.8million), the extremely high level of political representation in this country is absolutely ludicrous. So yes, sacking half of them would be a small but significant step on the road to political reform.

RobbingBandit

Stop the pensions ex TDs receive. It is crazy to think how many corrupt TDs are receiving enormous pensions and are still working day jobs or have incomes on the side. A pension should only be paid at retirement age.

If a TD is found corrupt they lose their pension and all their family are banned from Politics in Ireland.

Lantus

firstly, political parties are I believe the root cause of most of the failures in modern democracys. Parties work to serve their own ends and in a 2 or at best 3 party system they can be safe in the knowledge that even if out of power they receive a good chunk of funding and support to keep them going until they 'eventually' (by choice of course.) regain power by simply sticking it out. (colour X didnt work lets try colour Y)

Political parties work against the principles of democarcy and freedom not for them.

A council of free thinking individuals elected to govern would be much better. We need to involve the people to a greater extent and the vote for money scam that is currently being sold by every party in almost every country needs to be stopped. (you will be €2 better off and pay €1 less tax) This maddness will lead to the destruction of our society as who wouldn't vote to be richer?!? regardless of the loing term outcomes.


Our society needs to radically stremline all government expenditure. We really need to have debate on: -

1/ What governments should pay for... and
2/ The extent of power of governments

currently the extent and reach of these, especialy no.2 are creeping at an ever increasing rate an the people seem powerless to question stop or receeed any activites. In particular our freedoms and our rights.

Other posters have v. good points. Councils are IMHO corrupt private cabals of power unaccountable and there are way too many. 6 would suffice. The top people to run them should be elected as per directors of a company and treated as such. Accountable.

It is possible and we can do it.

Johnny_BravoIII

No money in politics.
A central fund for political expenses.
A ban on corporate donations & a ban on all personal donations in excess of €1,000.

hatrickpatrick

I'll post a proper response to this later, but on the transparency issue, all minutes of cabinet meetings should be published immediately, and I totally agree with the idea of recall.

Politicians are our representatives and our servants, I can't think of any sensible reason their deliberations should be held in secret.

SocSocPol

Introduce a list system for 70% of Dail seats.
Reduce the number of TD's to a ratio of 1 to 50,000 population.
Expenses should only be paid on a vouched reciept basis.
Abolish Leaders allowances.
In the same was as those who are neglient or criminally culpable can be barred from being a company director, make it possible for a Judical panel to to bar individuals unfit to hold public office from contesting elections or holding public office.
Appointees to State bodies to be vetted for suitability by Oireachtas committes.

Laminations

In the long term I'd like to see allowances scrapped and a very modest expense system in place which is fully vouched and audited at a greater sample than 10%. These expenses should be claimed through a departmental or party manager.

Constituency clinics would be amalgamated into an Constituency Government Office where all representatives (TDs for the area) would share administrative staff and have a platform to inform constituents of their progress at national level. No individual meetings or representations for any local matter - this should all go through the council which can bring recurring matters to the attention of local TDs.

TDs hold townhall meetings (Q and A sessions) with constituents so all issues are dealt with in the open. An independent chair will give time to speakers and representatives, and for new faces who wish to run in the next election, after they get a set number of signitures these meetings can also be a platform for these potential candidates. This is to be moderated strictly, refraining from discussion of local issues which should be a council matter. Weekly calenders of meetings / duties / attendance in Dail etc should be published on their websites

The division of national and local politics is the most important reform we need.

In the short term a three band pay scale for TDs would be nice. The current 92k salary should be accompanied by a more modest 70k wage (which constituents should 'encourage' their TDs to take) and also a lower AIW (34k) for those representatives that like to earn political capital from their solidarity with the people - this would net them ~27k so they'd really experience common-man living. If they want to donate to charity or party coffers they can do it with that money they are actually getting. Socialists at the moment have their cake and eat it, claiming they take the AIW but giving maximum allowable donations to their party and showing their personal altruism with charitable donations - it's just a bugbear of mine, if the money is theirs to donate then they can't claim they are on the AIW, and they aren't saving the state anything. Expenses for the most part should be taxed as a benefit in kind, to encourage more frugal considered use of the system.

Eggy Baby!

Stricter laws on the moral conduct of politicans.

But in legal terms wouldn't that be hard to define? Or are you talking in terms of expenses etc?

matthew8

More power to the local councils, we don't need our TDs painting yellow boxes and filling potholes. And repeal gender quotas.

Noreen1

Lantus wrote: »

firstly, political parties are I believe the root cause of most of the failures in modern democracys. Parties work to serve their own ends and in a 2 or at best 3 party system they can be safe in the knowledge that even if out of power they receive a good chunk of funding and support to keep them going until they 'eventually' (by choice of course.) regain power by simply sticking it out. (colour X didnt work lets try colour Y)

Political parties work against the principles of democarcy and freedom not for them.

A council of free thinking individuals elected to govern would be much better. We need to involve the people to a greater extent and the vote for money scam that is currently being sold by every party in almost every country needs to be stopped. (you will be €2 better off and pay €1 less tax) This maddness will lead to the destruction of our society as who wouldn't vote to be richer?!? regardless of the loing term outcomes.


Our society needs to radically stremline all government expenditure. We really need to have debate on: -

1/ What governments should pay for... and
2/ The extent of power of governments

currently the extent and reach of these, especialy no.2 are creeping at an ever increasing rate an the people seem powerless to question stop or receeed any activites. In particular our freedoms and our rights.

Very true.
The party system effectively gives all powers to the cabinet, effectively silencing the backbenchers, even in the "ruling" party - or, at any rate, rendering them powerless. The party whip system ensures that they are kept subservient.
As to the opposition? They are little more than paid hecklers!

I favour a system where all TDs have equal voting rights, and where their votes on any issue are made public.
That should ensure greater accountability, and a more representative democracy.

I also favour direct democracy, and a recall system, where any TD who makes election promises, can be recalled should he/she deliberately break those promises.

Personally, I'm sick of looking at party manifestos, and trying to work out what any given party are likely to do, if elected.
Casting your vote shouldn't be guesswork, yet that is exactly what it has become.

I also favour more information being given to TDs by the Dept. of Finance in an election year, to facilitate realistic budget planning.

Finally, the Seanad is in need of serious reform, starting with direct election of Senators, and some form of voting balance to be introduced, to prevent any dilution of the Seanads powers by Senators whose party are currently in Government.

Also, the office of the President should be barred to Politicians whose party are currently in Government, as should positions in the Council of State, thus maintaining a balance of power.

Finally, the Government should have no part whatsoever in electing the Judiciary. The judiciary should be entirely independent of Government, in the interests of impartiality when deciding on new legislation, thus avoiding any pressure from the Government of the day.
The problem with this, however, is the ability of Irish judges to set precedents, and how exactly the public could control any possible extremist Judge in the future is something that would have to be very carefully considered.

Am Chile

Noreen1 wrote: »

Very true.
The party system effectively gives all powers to the cabinet, effectively silencing the backbenchers, even in the "ruling" party - or, at any rate, rendering them powerless. The party whip system ensures that they are kept subservient.
As to the opposition? They are little more than paid hecklers!

I favour a system where all TDs have equal voting rights, and where their votes on any issue are made public.
That should ensure greater accountability, and a more representative democracy.

I also favour direct democracy, and a recall system, where any TD who makes election promises, can be recalled should he/she deliberately break those promises.

Personally, I'm sick of looking at party manifestos, and trying to work out what any given party are likely to do, if elected.
Casting your vote shouldn't be guesswork, yet that is exactly what it has become.

I also favour more information being given to TDs by the Dept. of Finance in an election year, to facilitate realistic budget planning.

Finally, the Seanad is in need of serious reform, starting with direct election of Senators, and some form of voting balance to be introduced, to prevent any dilution of the Seanads powers by Senators whose party are currently in Government.

Also, the office of the President should be barred to Politicians whose party are currently in Government, as should positions in the Council of State, thus maintaining a balance of power.

Finally, the Government should have no part whatsoever in electing the Judiciary. The judiciary should be entirely independent of Government, in the interests of impartiality when deciding on new legislation, thus avoiding any pressure from the Government of the day.
The problem with this, however, is the ability of Irish judges to set precedents, and how exactly the public could control any possible extremist Judge in the future is something that would have to be very carefully considered.

Excellent post I agree with everything you said in it-recall elections should be available as option to the the electorate here-
politicians should be elected in accordance with their pre election promises, they should only have a mandate when they are following these election promises.

This present system where politcians lie to get into power about what they will do and then do a complete U turn and still claim that they have a mandate to do what they're doing has to end sometime.recall elections we need in this country, something to put manners on politicians who lie to the electorate pre election.

Laminations

Am Chile wrote: »

Excellent post I agree with everything you said in it-recall elections should be available as option to the the electorate here-
politicians should be elected in accordance with their pre election promises, they should only have a mandate when they are following these election promises.

This present system where politcians lie to get into power about what they will do and then do a complete U turn and still claim that they have a mandate to do what they're doing has to end sometime.recall elections we need in this country, something to put manners on politicians who lie to the electorate pre election.

So I vote for Richard who says he won't raise taxes. You vote for Pat who says he won't cut spending. They both get in. At least one of them will break their pre election promises, probably both will. The idea of politicians keeping all of their promises is nice, but unrealistic. Coalitions are formed, compromises are made, conditions change. Recalling every politician who isn't allowed adapt policy to a changing economic climate is crazy.

Recall should be reserved for serious breaches of standards in public office or the blatant breaking of a promise that was never intended to be fulfilled (hard to prove).

Noreen1

Laminations wrote: »

So I vote for Richard who says he won't raise taxes. You vote for Pat who says he won't cut spending. They both get in. At least one of them will break their pre election promises, probably both will. The idea of politicians keeping all of their promises is nice, but unrealistic. Coalitions are formed, compromises are made, conditions change. Recalling every politician who isn't allowed adapt policy to a changing economic climate is crazy.

Recall should be reserved for serious breaches of standards in public office or the blatant breaking of a promise that was never intended to be fulfilled (hard to prove).

The answer to that is here:

Noreen1 wrote: »

I favour a system where all TDs have equal voting rights, and where their votes on any issue are made public.
That should ensure greater accountability, and a more representative democracy.

I also favour direct democracy, and a recall system, where any TD who makes election promises, can be recalled should he/she deliberately break those promises.

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

The answer to that is here:

That's not an answer, it's a recipe for disaster. The Dail would grind to a halt with the inability to make even simple decisions. Bills would take an age to pass. While increased sitting time is a good idea to allow bills to be debated properly, 166 disparate voices in the chamber would be a disaster and not solve the issue of them all being recalled for breaking promises.

How would it create a solution to Pats promise of no cuts and Richards promise of no tax increases? There is no compromise that would keep both promises intact, the only action would be inaction thus damaging the economy.

Now maybe under such a system politicians wouldn't make such promises, but what would election campaigns look like then? A plethora of very vague ideas and possibilities

Noreen1

Simple.

Pat and Richard would both have to accept majority rule - just like the rest of us accept the majority result in elections.

The difference would be that every TD would feel obliged to act on the mandate he was given by his electorate, rather than promising the sun, moon, and stars, then accepting whatever the Cabinet decided.

Result: More representative Democracy.

SocSocPol

Noreen1 wrote: »

Simple.

Pat and Richard would both have to accept majority rule - just like the rest of us accept the majority result in elections.

The difference would be that every TD would feel obliged to act on the mandate he was given by his electorate, rather than promising the sun, moon, and stars, then accepting whatever the Cabinet decided.

Result: More representative Democracy.

What would result is Government by perpetual referendum a recipe for complete disaster.
We already have a recall system, its called a general election.

Dannyboy83

SocSocPol wrote: »

We already have a recall system, its called a general election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election
A recall election (also called a recall referendum or representative recall) is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before his or her term has ended

Noreen1

@ SocSocPaul

What makes you think that?

Dannyboy83

Idea for reform:

Take back control of decision making from the unions. That is all.

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

Simple.

Pat and Richard would both have to accept majority rule - just like the rest of us accept the majority result in elections.

The difference would be that every TD would feel obliged to act on the mandate he was given by his electorate, rather than promising the sun, moon, and stars, then accepting whatever the Cabinet decided.

Result: More representative Democracy.

In my example Pat represents Labour and Richard FG. They are the majority, they've formed a government but had different mandates. Coalition governments wouldn't exist under your proposal, because both mandates would be compromised. It is up the party members/grassroots to decide whether a compromise is compromising too much of that parties values and policies and up to the electorate to decide so too at next election based on the compromises, u turns, failures and successes of that candidate /party. People need to base votes on performance at national level.

Recall should exist, i agree, but for a far more circumscribed set of circumstances. There should be a mechanism for removing a TD from the Dail (Mick Wallace is a recent case where we had TDs saying it was up to the people of Wexford to decide that at next election - too late)

Noreen1

Laminations wrote: »

In my example Pat represents Labour and Richard FG. They are the majority, they've formed a government but had different mandates. Coalition governments wouldn't exist under your proposal, because both mandates would be compromised. It is up the party members/grassroots to decide whether a compromise is compromising too much of that parties values and policies and up to the electorate to decide so too at next election based on the compromises, u turns, failures and successes of that candidate /party. People need to base votes on performance at national level.

Recall should exist, i agree, but for a far more circumscribed set of circumstances. There should be a mechanism for removing a TD from the Dail (Mick Wallace is a recent case where we had TDs saying it was up to the people of Wexford to decide that at next election - too late)

There would obviously have to be limitations to the recall.
However, to limit it to, er, legislative, or financial "irregularities" would severely curtail it's effectiveness.

The truth is, that in Countries that use a system of recall, it is rarely successfully used.

For example, could we have used a system of recall against Bertie? or CJ?
The electorate may not believe their stories - but they have never been found guilty in a court of law (unfortunately, imo.)

I'm aware that a recall system has the potential to be abused - but I am also aware that the current system is being abused.

We, the people, need to be able to hold our Politicians to account - and without a recall system, I don't see how we can achieve that.
I'm not saying that TDs should be able to be recalled on a whim - but the issue of trust needs to be addressed.
Limiting the power of recall to legislative issues, where the politicians concerned have the power to change legislation - is useless, imo.

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

There would obviously have to be limitations to the recall.
However, to limit it to, er, legislative, or financial "irregularities" would severely curtail it's effectiveness.

The truth is, that in Countries that use a system of recall, it is rarely successfully used.

For example, could we have used a system of recall against Bertie? or CJ?
The electorate may not believe their stories - but they have never been found guilty in a court of law (unfortunately, imo.)

I'm aware that a recall system has the potential to be abused - but I am also aware that the current system is being abused.

We, the people, need to be able to hold our Politicians to account - and without a recall system, I don't see how we can achieve that.
I'm not saying that TDs should be able to be recalled on a whim - but the issue of trust needs to be addressed.
Limiting the power of recall to legislative issues, where the politicians concerned have the power to change legislation - is useless, imo.

Well then no I don't agree with recall. I was wrong for suggesting it should be used to uphold standards. Instead we should just have better standards watchdogs and proper prosecutions and court cases for political wrongdoing rather than tribunals. I was suggesting recall as a filler in an area where the law should really be tough enough to deal with.

As for holding them to account on performance, we get to do that at election. It's an issue of maturity (not lack of recall) that we haven't really done that as a nation so far (we still engage in him been parish pump politics). Separating local and national governance would help us see our politicians as national legislators rather than the fella who opened the new gym in the local school.

Noreen1

Laminations wrote: »

Well then no I don't agree with recall. I was wrong for suggesting it should be used to uphold standards. Instead we should just have better standards watchdogs and proper prosecutions and court cases for political wrongdoing rather than tribunals. I was suggesting recall as a filler in an area where the law should really be tough enough to deal with.

As for holding them to account on performance, we get to do that at election. It's an issue of maturity (not lack of recall) that we haven't really done that as a nation so far (we still engage in him been parish pump politics). Separating local and national governance would help us see our politicians as national legislators rather than the fella who opened the new gym in the local school.

We will never achieve "proper" prosecutions, or standards watchdogs while the Government has a role in either choosing the watchdogs, or electing the Judiciary.
If you were a leading Barrister, looking for promotion, would you prosecute a TD?
You might - but most turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

View

Noreen1 wrote: »

I favour a system where all TDs have equal voting rights, and where their votes on any issue are made public.
That should ensure greater accountability, and a more representative democracy.

All TDs do have equal voting rights and their votes are made public (i.e. they do not cast secret ballots in the Dail).

It doesn't ensure greater accountability - in fact, I'd say many of electorate have little interest in any accountability as the "dodgier" a politician's record, the more popular they tend to be...

Lastly, I think you mis-use the phrase "representative democracy". It is perhaps best elaborated upon by Edmund Burke in (part of) his speech here (the background to which was an election campaign in which Burke was accused of putting the interests of Ireland before that of his Bristol constituents).

Mr.Micro

Noreen1 wrote: »

We will never achieve "proper" prosecutions, or standards watchdogs while the Government has a role in either choosing the watchdogs, or electing the Judiciary.
If you were a leading Barrister, looking for promotion, would you prosecute a TD?
You might - but most turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Yes indeed. People appointed to various Boards or other institutions by the Taoiseach or whoever. These same people often with little or no aptitude for the job other than a political affinity to the party that appointed him/her. Its all rotten and true accountability will never be achieved. FG/Labour will continue in the vein of the previous lot, because it suits them not to rock the boat while in office.

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

We will never achieve "proper" prosecutions, or standards watchdogs while the Government has a role in either choosing the watchdogs, or electing the Judiciary.
If you were a leading Barrister, looking for promotion, would you prosecute a TD?
You might - but most turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Recall wont fix this. But yep, reform in this area I'd agree with.

Sierra Oscar

matthew8 wrote: »

More power to the local councils, we don't need our TDs painting yellow boxes and filling potholes. And repeal gender quotas.

Yeah, if councillors actually had the power to deal with local matters effectively then constituents may not have to be so reliant on TD's to get local matters sorted. I really think that local government needs a radical overhaul. The power needs to shift somewhat from the council managers back to elected representatives. I also think that we could perhaps look at amalgamating councils and have them based more on larger regions to have more integrated and joined up planning alongside cutting down on wastage through the sharing of resources.

celtictiger32

GarIT wrote: »

All ministers should have a minimum of a masters degree in the relevant area so we don't end up with someone completely unqualified running a certain area. Like in previous years a lawyer running the economy and teachers running the dept of health. Keep people in the area they know and things might work better.

in fairness when you look at some of the qualifications that our td's have and they still cant get things right where the average joe can come up with a better solution, so i dont agree with this suggestion

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Stop the pensions ex TDs receive. It is crazy to think how many corrupt TDs are receiving enormous pensions and are still working day jobs or have incomes on the side. A pension should only be paid at retirement age.

If a TD is found corrupt they lose their pension and all their family are banned from Politics in Ireland.

nobody to run the country so;)

i know its been mentioned before but what would the pros and cons be for a sort of federality where we have four different (provincial) governing bodies answerable to a centralised parliament. wouldnt that seperate national and local issues for a start?

Mr.Micro

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Yeah, if councillors actually had the power to deal with local matters effectively then constituents may not have to be so reliant on TD's to get local matters sorted. I really think that local government needs a radical overhaul. The power needs to shift somewhat from the council managers back to elected representatives. I also think that we could perhaps look at amalgamating councils and have them based more on larger regions to have more integrated and joined up planning alongside cutting down on wastage through the sharing of resources.

I agree in principle with your post and especially that local government needs a radical overhaul. The roles of the Councillors and the employed professional staff needs to be clearly defined and not the cosy relationship that exists in many areas where the lines have become blurred. An example in kind is the recent planning issues that have plagued the country where Councillors bullied and overturned proper planning laws in favour of themselves and developers. Then there is the issue of the supreme power...the unelected, unaccountable County manager who has all the power. Reform cannot come soon enough.

Pedant

As a libertarian ... *cough* *cough* ... I would take out my sword and slash taxes and decapitate social welfare.

Mu ha ha ha ha!!