Red C Poll

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

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

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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


.

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

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

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

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

marienbad

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Got any examples?

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

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

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

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

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

alaimacerc

conorh91 wrote: »

Partially, yes.

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

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

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

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

alaimacerc

conorh91 wrote: »

You just did it again.

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

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

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

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

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

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll say.

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

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

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

marienbad

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

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

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

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

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

CramCycle

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

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

FreudianSlippers

CramCycle wrote: »

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

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

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

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

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

Seems a waste.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

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

Seems a waste.

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

CramCycle

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

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

Seems a waste.

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

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

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

oscarBravo

CramCycle wrote: »

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

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

This is a point I've made before about TDs getting people medical cards, or planning permission, or whatever:

If you're entitled to something, but you can't get it without intercession from a member of parliament, then the system is broken and needs to be fixed so that you can get what you're entitled to.

If you're not entitled to something, but get it as a result of intercession from a member of parliament, then the system is broken and needs to be fixed so that you can't get what you're not entitled to.

Either way, if a TD is "getting" you something - other than getting broken systems fixed - then the system remains broken.

Quin_Dub

CramCycle wrote: »

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

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

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

Totally agree on us having too many TDs

Should be 1 TD for every ~100k of population - Something in the 50 to 60 seat range , with possibly some allowances being made for geography bringing it a little higher.

166 or 158 is just too many.. With that number the majority are back-benchers with nothing to do at national level.

If you had more like 60 or so , all of them would by default have to be fully focused on National/Strategic issues and you could push the local stuff back down to the council level where it belongs.

With a Dail of ~60 the question of direct election vs. a list system becomes a valid discussion (which it isn't at current numbers)

****

Back to the Original topic - I think that the current Opinion poll results are less a vote against "the system" and more a vote against the current players..

I'm pretty confident that if you asked all those that said that they planned to vote Independent who specifically they planned to vote for the answer from quite a large number would be "I don't know" or "Someone like *Insert name of high profile Indy that isn't in their constituency*".

Which all in all just means that we have a very large number of floating/undecided voters that will go whatever way the wind is blowing in 12-15 months time..

For Reals

Quin_Dub wrote: »

....

Which all in all just means that we have a very large number of floating/undecided voters that will go whatever way the wind is blowing in 12-15 months time..

They're generally undecided because the main parties are not in the business of improving the system that feeds them and theirs so well.
Often I've found myself having to pick the lesser of several incompetent evils. It's not which way the wind is blowing more a lack of a decent alternative. So sometimes picking random indies rather than nepotistic greasy politicos is the only option.
As long as there are people who will support a political party like a football team, (because my Da did/win, lose or draw) the country will be cursed with the FF/FG cancer. Why would FF/FG change anything? They'll get 'X' amount of votes even if they ate babies. We should all be floating voters.

alaimacerc

For Reals wrote: »

Often I've found myself having to pick the lesser of several incompetent evils.

Welcome to your friendly neighbourhood political system!

So sometimes picking random indies rather than nepotistic greasy politicos is the only option.

Isn't that more like voting for the lesser-known evil, as opposed the actual lesser evil?

alaimacerc

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

How do you do that? Separate powers for each? Different modes of election? The above is also the reverse of the present situation, so you're not merely reforming or strengthening the distinction, you're flipping it.

cut the councils down and abolish the local authorities.

Not following what you mean here, or the distinction you're making. Do you want larger, merged council areas? Councils with (further!) reduced powers and functions? Areas run directly by central government?

alaimacerc

CramCycle wrote: »

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

That doesn't follow at all. If you keep MMC-STV, unmodified except that the constituencies are thrice the size, how does that prevent or even disincentivise "pandering"? They'd get tired out trying, or something?

FreudianSlippers

alaimacerc wrote: »

How do you do that? Separate powers for each? Different modes of election? The above is also the reverse of the present situation, so you're not merely reforming or strengthening the distinction, you're flipping it.

The Dail effectively stays the same, but TDs are only really involved in national politics (electorally, they would be from a bigger pool - I don't think some idiot should get elected because s/he is the best of a bad bunch in your area).

The Seanad becomes the Bundesrat effectively, where the elected officials from the Local Authorities meet to deal with local-focused policy.

Not following what you mean here, or the distinction you're making. Do you want larger, merged council areas? Councils with (further!) reduced powers and functions? Areas run directly by central government?

I wasn't too clear and in fairness, the Local Government Reform Act 2014 went a long way to trimming the fat.

Effectively, where there is any of what the refer to as "two-tier structure", the lower tier is cut off (i.e. the abolition of town councils) and the local authorities or councils or whatever you want to call them are culled and really only deal with local issues - things like national provision of water are dealt with on a national scale.

For Reals

alaimacerc wrote: »

Welcome to your friendly neighbourhood political system!

True.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Isn't that more like voting for the lesser-known evil, as opposed the actual lesser evil?

Depends on the person. Generally you'd have some insight to their background and record....so far.

alaimacerc

For Reals wrote: »

Depends on the person. Generally you'd have some insight to their background and record....so far.

I've found a tremendous number of indies on my ballot papers that not only have I not heard anything about in the media, they're opaque to googling. Maybe I just don't get out enough. Absent any evidence otherwise, I tend to assume they're either far-right conservatives or "local strokes for local folks" types, and avoid at all costs.

Godge

alaimacerc wrote: »

I've found a tremendous number of indies on my ballot papers that not only have I not heard anything about in the media, they're opaque to googling. Maybe I just don't get out enough. Absent any evidence otherwise, I tend to assume they're either far-right conservatives or "local strokes for local folks" types, and avoid at all costs.

There have been some rather scary ones as well.

Quin_Dub

For Reals wrote: »

Often I've found myself having to pick the lesser of several incompetent evils. It's not which way the wind is blowing more a lack of a decent alternative. So sometimes picking random indies rather than nepotistic greasy politicos is the only option.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Welcome to your friendly neighbourhood political system!


Isn't that more like voting for the lesser-known evil, as opposed the actual lesser evil?

I think it's a bit of both - Before they went into Government the Greens used to be the "Anyone but" transfer option when looking down the list of the usual suspects.. but their stint in Gov' lost them that status..

That spot now being filled by "Independents" - I think what happens is people vote for what they see as the least offensive of the main party candidates and then start looking for a random Indy to give a transfer to.... You still have to weed out the nutters from the Independent list , but under PR, non-extremist Independents will always do ok.

They are doing better than OK in opinion polls right now as people are struggling to pick their "least offensive" option (partly because they don't have to just yet)..

I still think however, that when people are standing in the polling booth they are less likely to give a number 1 to Independents than the current polls suggest - they'll still give a transfer to them though , but that might not stop those guys getting eliminated in later counts.

alaimacerc

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Dail effectively stays the same, but TDs are only really involved in national politics (electorally, they would be from a bigger pool - I don't think some idiot should get elected because s/he is the best of a bad bunch in your area).

The Seanad becomes the Bundesrat effectively, where the elected officials from the Local Authorities meet to deal with local-focused policy.

I'm not at all clear how this avoids TDs remaining embedded in shameless localism. If anything it might worsen it, as they now have to "compete" with their local senator doing so, who might be itching to replace them, if the dynamic is anything like the present senate.

Effectively, where there is any of what the refer to as "two-tier structure", the lower tier is cut off (i.e. the abolition of town councils) and the local authorities or councils or whatever you want to call them are culled and really only deal with local issues - things like national provision of water are dealt with on a national scale.

That does indeed sound not unlike where we are at present. Have to see how it "beds down".

Personally, I suspect that many county councils are "undersized" in a way that acts against meaningful local devolution. That means either merging still more councils (cue howls of outrage regarding "our traditional counties"), or beefing up the regional authorities to have a meaningful coordinating role (outrage regarding excess "tiers" again). Or most likely, no real extra powers for local councils at all.

alaimacerc

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I still think however, that when people are standing in the polling booth they are less likely to give a number 1 to Independents than the current polls suggest - they'll still give a transfer to them though , but that might not stop those guys getting eliminated in later counts.

If transfers were fishes, we'd all ride! As I think Benjamin J. Grimm once said. Certainly I certainly started looking for any possible low-preference transfer, to indies or otherwise, when Leo Varadkar (I wonder what happened to him?) announced "we're going for an overall majority".

It's near-impossible to divine what's in the minds of people currently saying they'll give their #1 to an independent. As impossible for the "pro-independent" posters as it is for anyone else. If you want to vote for a left-wing independent (because Labour are traitors, SF are nasty nationalists, and let's not be losing the run and voting for a Trot), and your local independents are actually Rossite free-marketeers, assorted social conservatives, and some local randomer with no policies whatsoever, is that really going to happen? Mutatis mutandis with any permutation of the above. Or if that 29% goes five different ways, if by some miracles all exist, and everyone saying they will now actually does vote for them.

FreudianSlippers

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not at all clear how this avoids TDs remaining embedded in shameless localism. If anything it might worsen it, as they now have to "compete" with their local senator doing so, who might be itching to replace them, if the dynamic is anything like the present senate.


That does indeed sound not unlike where we are at present. Have to see how it "beds down".

Personally, I suspect that many county councils are "undersized" in a way that acts against meaningful local devolution. That means either merging still more councils (cue howls of outrage regarding "our traditional counties"), or beefing up the regional authorities to have a meaningful coordinating role (outrage regarding excess "tiers" again). Or most likely, no real extra powers for local councils at all.

Our country is too small for meaningful devolution IMHO. My point was simply to purpose the Seanad with dealing with local issues and let the Dail carry on worrying about national legislation. It's effectively making use of what we already have as opposed to having massive layers of bureaucracy

Quin_Dub

alaimacerc wrote: »

If transfers were fishes, we'd all ride! As I think Benjamin J. Grimm once said. Certainly I certainly started looking for any possible low-preference transfer, to indies or otherwise, when Leo Varadkar (I wonder what happened to him?) announced "we're going for an overall majority".

It's near-impossible to divine what's in the minds of people currently saying they'll give their #1 to an independent. As impossible for the "pro-independent" posters as it is for anyone else. If you want to vote for a left-wing independent (because Labour are traitors, SF are nasty nationalists, and let's not be losing the run and voting for a Trot), and your local independents are actually Rossite free-marketeers, assorted social conservatives, and some local randomer with no policies whatsoever, is that really going to happen? Mutatis mutandis with any permutation of the above. Or if that 29% goes five different ways, if by some miracles all exist, and everyone saying they will now actually does vote for them.

Don't disagree at all - Not sure how a lot of people can truly say that they'll vote Number 1 for Independents 15 months out from an election , because other than the already elected ones who the hell knows who or what will be on my voting card come the GE in terms of "Non-aligned" Candidates...

alaimacerc

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Our country is too small for meaningful devolution IMHO.

People approvingly cite Switzerland, a country only about twice the population of Ireland. Often in the context of "let's have more referenda so we can say 'no' to still more of everything", but it's an interesting comparison in regards to devolution, too. It has meaningful devolution to two lower levels: canton and commune. Can't Ireland manage one?

My point was simply to purpose the Seanad with dealing with local issues and let the Dail carry on worrying about national legislation.

There's what the Dáil does (or is supposed to do), and there's the antics of individual TDs. Not clear how this would advance the latter.

Godge

alaimacerc wrote: »

If transfers were fishes, we'd all ride! As I think Benjamin J. Grimm once said. Certainly I certainly started looking for any possible low-preference transfer, to indies or otherwise, when Leo Varadkar (I wonder what happened to him?) announced "we're going for an overall majority".

It's near-impossible to divine what's in the minds of people currently saying they'll give their #1 to an independent. As impossible for the "pro-independent" posters as it is for anyone else. If you want to vote for a left-wing independent (because Labour are traitors, SF are nasty nationalists, and let's not be losing the run and voting for a Trot), and your local independents are actually Rossite free-marketeers, assorted social conservatives, and some local randomer with no policies whatsoever, is that really going to happen? Mutatis mutandis with any permutation of the above. Or if that 29% goes five different ways, if by some miracles all exist, and everyone saying they will now actually does vote for them.

Amazingly, there are people on here who will just vote independent for the sake of it without any reference to policies.

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

Amazingly, there are people on here who will just vote independent for the sake of it without any reference to policies.

That does seem to be the implication of the argument being advanced by some. I doubt it's a large element of the 29% in the opinion poll, though.

conorh91

CramCycle wrote: »

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

Brian Lenihan Senior used to say that 90% of people in his clinics had problems which were emendable simply by filling out the correct forms or coughing up the correct fee. The other 10% were impossible.

I suspect those proportions have changed only slightly.

TDs are likely to be pissed off about spending their time dwelling on medical cards or welfare payments to which constituents are entitled via the correct channels. I think a significant problem is that favour-seeking has become a bad habit of voters. Some members of the public no longer have the willingness to go through the motions themselves, and see the local TD as a first resort. It's a sort of civic laziness. I think it depresses politicians as much as anyone.

The complaint about civic lethargy is not intended to downplay the responsibility of the weak political architecture and the political-party dominance that emasculates individual TDs. All of these factors are to blame, and they're all wound up in each other.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

Brian Lenihan Senior used to say that 90% of people in his clinics had problems which were emendable simply by filling out the correct forms or coughing up the correct fee. The other 10% were impossible.

I suspect those proportions have changed only slightly.

TDs are likely to be pissed off about spending their time dwelling on medical cards or welfare payments to which constituents are entitled via the correct channels. I think a significant problem is that favour-seeking has become a bad habit of voters. Some members of the public no longer have the willingness to go through the motions themselves, and see the local TD as a first resort. It's a sort of civic laziness. I think it depresses politicians as much as anyone.

The complaint about civic lethargy is not intended to downplay the responsibility of the weak political architecture and the political-party dominance that emasculates individual TDs. All of these factors are to blame, and they're all wound up in each other.

I would posit the reverse- politicians are only too glad to help constituents get their entitlements. The problem is they never tell those people that but behave as if they had to move mountain to get the job done .

CramCycle

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not at all clear how this avoids TDs remaining embedded in shameless localism. If anything it might worsen it, as they now have to "compete" with their local senator doing so, who might be itching to replace them, if the dynamic is anything like the present senate.

How do they compete with someone going for something different to what they are going for?

I would like to see a group like an election commision who slap the wrists of anyone caught on record saying they will do something that is not in their remit. eg a person running for TD says they will get a road fixed, hand slapped, fine and repeated breaches means they are removed from the ballot. If a local councillor says they will draw the local authoritys attention to the state of said road, that's fine.

Personally, I suspect that many county councils are "undersized" in a way that acts against meaningful local devolution. That means either merging still more councils (cue howls of outrage regarding "our traditional counties"), or beefing up the regional authorities to have a meaningful coordinating role (outrage regarding excess "tiers" again). Or most likely, no real extra powers for local councils at all.

Undersized? Possibly in the major cities (I have no idea, just guessing) but the likes of Longford council are far from undersized (I do know). There are more than enough staff to handle meaningful devolution, all they need is an accountable manager.

alaimacerc

marienbad wrote: »

I would posit the reverse- politicians are only too glad to help constituents get their entitlements. The problem is they never tell those people that but behave as if they had to move mountain to get the job done .

Friend of mine has an anecdote about a certain politician who allegedly used to go around his constituency telling people unsolicitedly that he'd got them a phone! (Back when there was a backlog or waiting list for landlines.) ... having just got hold of the list of phone connections due to be made, entirely independently of himself.

alaimacerc

CramCycle wrote: »

How do they compete with someone going for something different to what they are going for?

You spend your term as a senator stumping on an unashamedly localist basis, and then run as a TD saying "look at my great local record". Much as they do at present, but this proposal would exacerbate the problem by giving them a "legitimate" role and set of powers to do the localist grandstanding on the basis of.

I would like to see a group like an election commision who slap the wrists of anyone caught on record saying they will do something that is not in their remit.

It's always problematic to leave this sort of thing in the hands of officials. At one extreme, it's just the price of doing business. Pay the fine, move into your generously-salaried post. At the other, it's extrademocratic meddling. Think of your favourite example from the Middle East (Israel included!) and banning of candidates from running.

Undersized? Possibly in the major cities (I have no idea, just guessing) but the likes of Longford council are far from undersized (I do know). There are more than enough staff to handle meaningful devolution, all they need is an accountable manager.

Longford is an excellent case in point. "Devolution" to 39,000 people is a little bit of a joke, no? With the same set of powers being devolved to large counties and major cities? A regional authority would make a lot more sense in that... well, region.

marienbad

alaimacerc wrote: »

Friend of mine has an anecdote about a certain politician who allegedly used to go around his constituency telling people unsolicitedly that he'd got them a phone! (Back when there was a backlog or waiting list for landlines.) ... having just got hold of the list of phone connections due to be made, entirely independently of himself.

I knew of a guy who was approached by a load of different people about a gardeners job with the council , he charged each and everyone of the money and promised he would do what even he could but could not guarantee it.

The job went to the guy it was earmarked for from day I and then he went back to all those supplicants and spun a yarn about how hard he had worked but to no avail. They all taught he was a hero.

They all laughed about it in the pub afterwards just Like Lenihan (I think it was)on the Late Late Show throwing request in the bin unread.

CramCycle

alaimacerc wrote: »

You spend your term as a senator stumping on an unashamedly localist basis, and then run as a TD saying "look at my great local record". Much as they do at present, but this proposal would exacerbate the problem by giving them a "legitimate" role and set of powers to do the localist grandstanding on the basis of.

I never suggested that the Seanad get involved with local issues, I think that was another poster, that's not their job. A bit of reform such as the removing of those elected by the Taoiseach, and in general, set criteria for the election of a person to certain panels, be that educational or proven work experience. I am not sure how elections to these positions would be made which maybe where my plan falls down, but I think it could be done.

The local record you refer to, as mentioned in a previous post, is a matter for a mix from the council and local councillors not TDs and not for senators.

It's always problematic to leave this sort of thing in the hands of officials. At one extreme, it's just the price of doing business. Pay the fine, move into your generously-salaried post. At the other, it's extrademocratic meddling. Think of your favourite example from the Middle East (Israel included!) and banning of candidates from running.

But its not, if the rules are there you will find that bar parties ganging up on each other if oversight is provided by an independent panel and all complaints are reviewed, it should work. I am not referring to banning people with specific opinons or leanings, but discplining those who knowingly and openly mislead the electorate. As examples above go, alot of people in Ireland still think that some elected officials can do alot more than they can or than they should.

Longford is an excellent case in point. "Devolution" to 39,000 people is a little bit of a joke, no? With the same set of powers being devolved to large counties and major cities? A regional authority would make a lot more sense in that... well, region.

To a degree you are right, but geographically it makes sense as their is infrastructure and a base in place. What it does need is proper management, one that can make local government more efficient, rather than the bulbous waste that it is in Longford. Taking the list from their website:

Arts Office - local and regional
Civil Defence - moved to a more regional (midlands) authority with a small response unit in the centre
Corporate Affairs - local and regional
Community & Enterprise - local
Cultural and Heritage - local
Customer Services - regional, one small group could handle 99% of customer service issues with a phone book, as well as deal with complaints procedures without being swayed by local feeling
Elections & Voting - Nationally controlled
Environment - mixture of regional and national
Finance - local and regional
Fire Service - regional, with the exception of the fire brigade itself, all other services provided could be done on a regional level.
Housing - local and regional, to be able to co-ordinate plans on a more useful basis
Human Resources - local and regional
Information Technology - regional
Longford Sports Partnership - local
Motoring - national, why the hell do the local council have anything to do with this, pay by post or online but should have nothing to do with the council
Planning - Should be covered by the planning authority with council and people of interest only allowed to make submissions, never to overthrow the decisions of the planning authority.
Roads - National
Water Services - National (site updated to reflect this).

Just my opinion though, more research would be needed, obviously.

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

I would posit the reverse- politicians are only too glad to help constituents get their entitlements.

With respect I think this view is either naive or else too truncated. Politicians are only "glad' of this work insofar as most of them have no other work to be doing. If they weren't working on pre-existing entitlements, they'd be twiddling their thumbs in pressing green/red buttons and attending funerals, and they're not crazy about the latter either.

I think all TDs and Senators would prefer to be involved in policymaking and legislating. I think a great many TDs are pissed off about the work they do, even if they find themselves with no other option but to embrace it, in the hope that they will one day be promoted to a genuinely political role.

How many FG and Labour backbenchers are there; around 60 I suppose? Government might as well replace them with junior civil servants, because a vast bulk of the work they are doing is the work of junior civil servants. Anyone who thinks these TDs are happy with such a role is kidding themselves.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

With respect I think this view is either naive or else too truncated. Politicians are only "glad' of this work insofar as most of them have no other work to be doing. If they weren't working on pre-existing entitlements, they'd be twiddling their thumbs in pressing green/red buttons and attending funerals, and they're not crazy about the latter either.

I think all TDs and Senators would prefer to be involved in policymaking and legislating. I think a great many TDs are pissed off about the work they do, even if they find themselves with no other option but to embrace it, in the hope that they will one day be promoted to a genuinely political role.

How many FG and Labour backbenchers are there; around 60 I suppose? Government might as well replace them with junior civil servants, because a vast bulk of the work they are doing is the work of junior civil servants. Anyone who thinks these TDs are happy with such a role is kidding themselves.

We have no way of really knowing whether they like it or don't , most of them are doing since before they were ever elected and are very good at playing the 'system' .

Those are the type of politicians we elect . A classic example would be Des O'Malley and willy O'Dea . While Des was never in any danger of losing his seat from Day I Willie outperformed him at the polls and why ? Because O'Malley focused almost exclusively on national issues and arguably did 'the state some service' and Willy was and is relentless in the local gripes .

O'Malley couldn't even make it to Europe

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

A classic example would be Des O'Malley and willy O'Dea . While Des was never in any danger of losing his seat from Day I Willie outperformed him at the polls and why ? Because O'Malley focused almost exclusively on national issues and arguably did 'the state some service' and Willy was and is relentless in the local gripes .

This is not inconsistent with what I'm saying. I don't deny that backbenchers undertake civil-service tasks for their constituents, and I already said it does go down well in the clinics and at the ballot box.

Having said that, your examples are more blurry because both men were Ministers at different times and O'Malley was unpopular for all sorts of reasons, especially in the Fianna Fáil strongholds of Munster, which explains his inability to secure a European seat.

But to return to the point: if given the choice, politicians would prefer to be doing legislative work. I doubt anybody seriously likes babysitting medical card applications. Not even the people whose job it is, I suspect.

Quin_Dub

conorh91 wrote: »

This is not inconsistent with what I'm saying. I don't deny that backbenchers undertake civil-service tasks for their constituents, and I already said it does go down well in the clinics and at the ballot box.

Having said that, your examples are more blurry because both men were Ministers at different times and O'Malley was unpopular for all sorts of reasons, especially in the Fianna Fáil strongholds of Munster, which explains his inability to secure a European seat.

But to return to the point: if given the choice, politicians would prefer to be doing legislative work. I doubt anybody seriously likes babysitting medical card applications. Not even the people whose job it is, I suspect.

Exactly - Having the better part of two thirds of elected TD's doing nothing substantive in terms of legislative/policy work is utterly stupid.

At a rough guess there about 35-40 TD' on the government side actively involved (Minister, Jr Minister , Sitting on a some committees). In opposition you have less than that if you total up the "Shadow ministers" and committee members - So 60-70 out of 166 actually doing National work in our National parliament.

As I said earlier - 1 TD per 100k of population with a bit of tweaking for geographical coverage and you have a Dail of 60 or so - Which based on the above estimates is all you really need to fill all of the national roles that are needed/available.

alaimacerc

CramCycle wrote: »

I never suggested that the Seanad get involved with local issues, I think that was another poster, that's not their job.

Yeah, another poster, but that's what you appeared to be commenting on. Their suggestion was that you "solve" Dáil localism by giving the Seanad a local role, to in some way "ringfence" TDs from having one. I suggested that would worsen the problem, because you now have an even more virulently localist party (or other) rival to potentially compete with.

But its not, if the rules are there you will find that bar parties ganging up on each other if oversight is provided by an independent panel and all complaints are reviewed, it should work. I am not referring to banning people with specific opinons or leanings, but discplining those who knowingly and openly mislead the electorate.

And that's inevitably going to be a subjective judgement, and inevitably going to be open to abuse as soon as you empower someone to make such judgements.

To a degree you are right, but geographically it makes sense as their is infrastructure and a base in place. What it does need is proper management, one that can make local government more efficient, rather than the bulbous waste that it is in Longford.

I don't think there's anything magical about county boundaries, and infrastructure isn't forever. The real question is, which services are better under local (or regional) democratic control, and at what level or critical mass?

Service "delivery" is I think a secondary consideration: if it's purely simply a matter of local offices or decentralisation that can be done with or without formal devolution, according to whichever is the handiest. There is, as you point out, no relationship between local democracy and where you might want to pop into to get your motor tax disk.