Sean Barrett, the "infallibility" of the Ceann Comhairle and Irish politics

View

conorh91 wrote: »

But when backbenchers are dominated and impeded by Government and the party system from undertaking their constitutional roles, nobody bats an eyelid.

Backbenchers aren't "dominated and impeded" - they choose to support a government made up of their party colleagues.

Any backbencher can quit their party at any stage should they so choose; they choose not to in virtually every case.

hatrickpatrick

View wrote: »

Backbenchers aren't "dominated and impeded" - they choose to support a government made up of their party colleagues.

Any backbencher can quit their party at any stage should they so choose; they choose not to in virtually every case.

Possibly because under Dail standing orders, they lose the full rights of a TD if they are not aligned to a group with seven or more members. :rolleyes:

expectationlost

conorh91 wrote: »

Presumably, the person I quoted.

No it doesn't. Fine Gael TDs, who are not members of the Government, are not to 'represent' the Executive. Their office exists to legislate and to hold the Government to account, just like every other TD. If they are failing to properly oversee the work of the Government, in Accordance with Article 28.1° of the Constitution, then they are failing in their duties.

It never ceases to amaze me that nobody cares about this.

If anyone tried to stop the President doing his job, there would be a national outcry. Yet the President is a member of the Oireachtas, as is every backbench FG and Labour TD. But when backbenchers are dominated and impeded by Government and the party system from undertaking their constitutional roles, nobody bats an eyelid.

technicaly you are your right, along with your usual dose of condescension

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/measuring-tds-d%C3%A1il-activity-rates-the-method-behind-the-data-1.2093934

His observation was echoed by fellow backbenchers Helen McEntee and Joe O’Reilly, who maintained that any information they sought could be retrieved informally and free of cost by liaising with the relevant Government departments. They also said that parliamentary questions were primarily tailored for Opposition TDs who are not in a position to avail of similar links.

that's in relation to PQs, buts its also the case for legislation, ask a goverment party TD why they don't speak more in the Dail and they say they prefer to have quiet word with the Minister, TDs across the country use this as a feature during elections, saying, I'll be in the government party, you'll want a government TD in your constituency so you have access to Minister through me.

plus people are constantly giving out about the whip, which is related to this, if you have to vote for the bill whatever it contents, then why speak publically out against the bill they'll rarely do it.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Possibly because under Dail standing orders, they lose the full rights of a TD if they are not aligned to a group with seven or more members. :rolleyes:

And who decides the Dáil Standing Orders?

Why, it is the TDs themselves - hence they choose the system, choose to maintain it and choose to follow it.

And, to point out the obvious, if as the previous poster claims backbench TDs are being "dominated and impeded" then they don't have the "full rights of a TD", so the prospect of losing those nominal "full rights" (which they can't exercise in reality), is hardly going to persuade anyone to go along with the system unless they want to...

expectationlost

View wrote: »

And who decides the Dáil Standing Orders?

Why, it is the TDs themselves - hence they choose the system, choose to maintain it and choose to follow it.

under whip via the cpp which always has a government party majority

and even the chair wasn't consulted before the gov party's announced their reforms

Mr Barrett confirmed that he was not consulted prior to the publication of the Government's latest reform plans.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0922/475771-politics/

but they would have gone through the cpp i guess after the annoucement but nobody is allowed minutes of cpp meetings, not even other TDs http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/shane-ross/were-in-dangerous-territory-as-dails-most-powerful-cabal-keeps-its-secrets-30355007.html

View

expectationlost wrote: »

under whip via the cpp which always has a government party majority

Again, a "government party majority" only exists because a majority of TDs - with a majority thereof being backbench TDs - choose to support the government of the day. TDs choose to take the whip and they choose not to reject it. They are perfectly free to refuse to take the whip should they so choose - and, they'll still collect the same salary & expenses should they refuse it.

hatrickpatrick

View wrote: »

Again, a "government party majority" only exists because a majority of TDs - with a majority thereof being backbench TDs - choose to support the government of the day. TDs choose to take the whip and they choose not to reject it. They are perfectly free to refuse to take the whip should they so choose - and, they'll still collect the same salary & expenses should they refuse it.

And if all politicians were the self serving gobsh!tes who care primarily about salary and expenses, that would work out. But others actually care about serving their constituents as best they can, which is clearly implausible if they're never allowed to speak in the representative body because they've been ostracized for not obeying the leader.

We've had hundreds of whip discussions on this forum and we all know very well where everyone stands on it. Personally I feel it's irrelevant to this particular incident - whether whipped or not, our parliament has the right to hold the government to account as best they can. Denying them the right to vet the terms of an extremely important enquiry into possible wrongdoing in the administration of justice, on the basis of a letter from someone who is accused of partaking in or at least facilitating the aforementioned wrongdoing, is wrong, dangerous, and absurd.

I'm genuinely surprised that people are arguing "Sure why did they need to debate it, what would they have changed". This suggests that when a majority already know what they want, nobody should be allowed to make any statements on the matter.

I for one am not particularly fond of the dictatorial singularity which results from taking this apparent principle to its natural conclusion.

conorh91

View wrote: »

Backbenchers aren't "dominated and impeded" - they choose to support a government made up of their party colleagues.

Ridiculous statement.

Parties provide research, administrative and financial support and personnel (many of them volunteers) that an ejected member could never hope to replicate, and in such circumstances ejection represents a major impairment to future electoral prospects. This is even more pronounced when it comes to future cabinet appointments.

If you are seriously trying to tell me that wielding a piano by a thin rope over someone's career does not amount to domination, then you just cannot be taken seriously.

Of course it does. Ejection from qualified-party membership and from candidate selection has major career and financial implications for individual TDs, and this opens the way to political domination, or whipping, of individual TDs.