The rise of the Independents. Did you vote for one? Why?

Sleepy

As of this morning, we have elected 16 Independent TDs:

Seán Canney
Michael Collins
Catherine Connolly (formerly Labour)
Michael Fitzmaurice
Noel Grealish (formerly Progressive Democrats)
John Halligan (formerly Workers' Party)
Michael Harty
Danny Healy-Rae
Michael Healy-Rae
Michael Lowry (kicked out of Fine Gael)
Mattie McGrath (formerly Fianna Fail)
Denis Naughten (formerly Fine Gael)
Maureen O' Sullivan
Thomas Pringle (formerly Sinn Fein)
Shane Ross
Katherine Zapone (subject to a re-count)

And still have four in the running, with two likely to take a seat:

Tommy Broughan (formerly Labour)
Finian McGrath
Kevin "Boxer" Moran (fomerly Fianna Fail)
Averil Power (fomerly Fianna Fail)


Frankly, this baffles me. I don't understand why anyone would vote for a candidate with zero chance of affecting change. I can kind of see why someone might support a candidate who missed out on a party's nomination this time around in the hope they'd re-join the party after their election (potentially with some extra clout for being "owed one") but electing the likes of the Healy Raes or Michael Lowry only seems to serve as two fingers to the rest of the country.

The era of the king-maker seems to be well and truly passed so what benefit is there to electing these independents? Are people living in the past and naievely hoping for a Gregory Deal for their constituency?

To my mind, the only people who will benefit from the election of these people are themselves and those they get to hire as assistants. They don't even get automatic speaking rights?!

Judging from the number of them returned, it stands to reason that a few of you here voted for them so boards.ie: why did you vote for an Independent? What benefit do you see them being able to bring to your constituency or (ideally) the country as a whole?

jester77

It's the ultimate parish pump voting system, voters just voting for someone who might do something locally. It's a very sad reflection of the system as a whole and shows that it is nothing but a failed system when such voting is enabled. The voters and the politicians are mainly concerned about things at the local level and are not the national level. The country as a whole is in a worse position because of this and any chance of recovery is greatly hindered.

Magico Gonzalez

What about yer man with the hair from Roscommon? Turf, free the weed...all that?

Sleepy

Luke Flanagan? He's a member of the European Parliament.

Sleepy

jester77 wrote: »

It's the ultimate parish pump voting system, voters just voting for someone who might do something locally. It's a very sad reflection of the system as a whole and shows that it is nothing but a failed system when such voting is enabled. The voters and the politicians are mainly concerned about things at the local level and are not the national level. The country as a whole is in a worse position because of this and any chance of recovery is greatly hindered.

The thing is, there's sweet **** all these local issues independents can do for their constituents. They don't have the party backing to enact any change and aren't even entitled to speaking time to whine when their constituency is forgotten about by the parties in government...

dr.kenneth noisewater

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

What about yer man with the hair from Roscommon? Turf, free the weed...all that?

Ming is in Europe now!

Fr Tod Umptious

jester77 wrote: »

It's the ultimate parish pump voting system, voters just voting for someone who might do something locally. It's a very sad reflection of the system as a whole and shows that it is nothing but a failed system when such voting is enabled. The voters and the politicians are mainly concerned about things at the local level and are not the national level. The country as a whole is in a worse position because of this and any chance of recovery is greatly hindered.

I think its far more than parish pump politics.

I think 2002 would have been a better example of parish pump politics.
If I recall thete were relatively a lot of independents that day to, but the country was flush with cash and each was promising a slice of the pie.

This time round the cash is not there
Votes for independent candidates this time round were essentialy protest votes.

For those that did not have the stomach to select SF selected independent candidates instead.

K-9

Indeed, I think it is more to do with disillusionment than parish pump, though the likes of the Healy Rae's and Lowry would be like that.

johnnyskeleton

Sleepy wrote: »

Frankly, this baffles me. I don't understand why anyone would vote for a candidate with zero chance of affecting change.

What differences are there between FF, FG and Lab really, when we get down to it? Jobs for the boys, high taxes and low services are the order of the day. And SF offer the same only even higher taxes. So voting between these parties will not significantly change policy.

By voting for independents like Stephen Donnelly or Shane Ross the last time, we now see two new, albeit small, parties who might actually offer something different. Renua too, although thats a different story.

I can kind of see why someone might support a candidate who missed out on a party's nomination this time around in the hope they'd re-join the party after their election (potentially with some extra clout for being "owed one") but electing the likes of the Healy Raes or Michael Lowry only seems to serve as two fingers to the rest of the country.

The era of the king-maker seems to be well and truly passed so what benefit is there to electing these independents? Are people living in the past and naievely hoping for a Gregory Deal for their constituency?

Well its a gamble. If they are the kingmaker its great for their voters. The corrollary is that if a government minister is your TD its even better. So people take that chance. If it doesnt work out then you could be left out in the cold, but thats alaways the gamble if you vote for the party or person who is not in the next government.

Judging from the number of them returned, it stands to reason that a few of you here voted for them so boards.ie: why did you vote for an Independent? What benefit do you see them being able to bring to your constituency or (ideally) the country as a whole?

Dont forget that a lot of people were predicting late last year a weakened FG/Lab coalition, possibly shored up by a few kingmaker independents. Had that possibility not been in peoples heads, they might not have voted that way.

But all that aside, maybe we are looking at it the wrong way. Maybe the Healy Raes and Lowrys would be just as popular if they were members of parties. Maybe its their personalities and not their independent status. Maybe thats why not all former party members now running as independents are as popular as they once were.

Sleepy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What differences are there between FF, FG and Lab really, when we get down to it? Jobs for the boys, high taxes and low services are the order of the day. And SF offer the same only even higher taxes. So voting between these parties will not significantly change policy.

I agree that there's little between the 3 main parties but voting for them does at least ensure that your candidate has a chance of influencing policy change and lets you choose the "least worst option".

By voting for independents like Stephen Donnelly or Shane Ross the last time, we now see two new, albeit small, parties who might actually offer something different. Renua too, although thats a different story.

Are the Independent Alliance a party? I think both are rather exceptional Independents though: they both ran on National, rather than local issues

Well its a gamble. If they are the kingmaker its great for their voters. The corrollary is that if a government minister is your TD its even better. So people take that chance. If it doesnt work out then you could be left out in the cold, but thats alaways the gamble if you vote for the party or person who is not in the next government.

I think this is why most do it tbh, they witness the deals Jackie Healy Rae and Tony Gregory got for their constituencies in the past and hope for the same even though (IMO) that hasn't been a realistic prospect for quite some time: there's simply too many independents

Dont forget that a lot of people were predicting late last year a weakened FG/Lab coalition, possibly shored up by a few kingmaker independents. Had that possibility not been in peoples heads, they might not have voted that way.

Every poll in the run up to the election indicated that such a scenario was very unlikely though. The Labour collapse may have been more severe than expected but it was absolutely inevitable that both FG and Labour would lose seats this time around.

But all that aside, maybe we are looking at it the wrong way. Maybe the Healy Raes and Lowrys would be just as popular if they were members of parties. Maybe its their personalities and not their independent status. Maybe thats why not all former party members now running as independents are as popular as they once were.

But if they were members of parties (however small), there'd be no issue: they'd have a chance to influence policy as they'd have the opportunity to form part of a government, as independents, this avenue isn't really open to them.

Voting Independent is something we need to strongly discourage imho. It leads to legislative gridlock, demotes our national legislators to glorified county councillors and encourages parish pump gombeenism and the misuse of national resources.

TBH, if there were a democratic / legal way to do so, I'd be inclined to look at only allowing members of registered political parties to stand as candidates for election.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

People vote for policies. And when an independent gets in, at least it's a voice being heard. And larger parties might think, hmmm - that guys getting thousands of votes for saying x. Maybe we should consider it as a policy?

If indeoendents shouldn't be voted for, then why run then? Where do you expect change to come from? Where do you expect fresh ideas come from?

Ultimately, it's s vote not going to s major party because the person voting doesn't like or believe in any of the main parties.

Sleepy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

People vote for policies.

I think you give people too much credit

And when an independent gets in, at least it's a voice being heard. And larger parties might think, hmmm - that guys getting thousands of votes for saying x. Maybe we should consider it as a policy?

If indeoendents shouldn't be voted for, then why run then? Where do you expect change to come from? Where do you expect fresh ideas come from?

I don't see independents offering fresh ideas, I see them offering empty promises that any sane person knows they'll never be able to deliver: No Independent TD can abolish Irish Water, block the referendum to Repeal the 8th Ammendment, bring jobs to Ballygobackwards etc. A backbencher hasn't got much more chance in reality but they at least have a chance. Should that backbencher climb a party's ranks, that becomes a greater chance as their influence grows and they become a contender for ministerial office.

Change comes from within the system and only those in the system can play any part in changing it.

Ultimately, it's s vote not going to s major party because the person voting doesn't like or believe in any of the main parties.

But that same candidate, had they found some like-minded individuals in one of the existing parties, or found enough common ground with others (where that ground is very different to that of the existing parties) could have been part of a party.

nautilusshell

From the IT this morning, following Sean Haughey's election in Dublin Bay North...

A member of the Haughey camp said shortly before the announcement “all the trouble she caused for Fianna Fáil in this constituency and she gets Sean elected - that makes us feel very good”.

Averil Power achieved more in one term in the Seanad than the likes of Sean Haughey will achieve in a lifetime.

Sleepy

If the two of them were drowning I don't know what kind of sandwich I'd make. Embarrassed to live in a constituency that elected one and gave the other such a high vote.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sleepy wrote: »

I think you give people too much credit


I don't see independents offering fresh ideas, I see them offering empty promises that any sane person knows they'll never be able to deliver: No Independent TD can abolish Irish Water, block the referendum to Repeal the 8th Ammendment, bring jobs to Ballygobackwards etc. A backbencher hasn't got much more chance in reality but they at least have a chance. Should that backbencher climb a party's ranks, that becomes a greater chance as their influence grows and they become a contender for ministerial office.

Change comes from within the system and only those in the system can play any part in changing it.


But that same candidate, had they found some like-minded individuals in one of the existing parties, or found enough common ground with others (where that ground is very different to that of the existing parties) could have been part of a party.

I was posting mainly in theory. Ming Flamagan is an example of an independant getting an issue into the public eye. Abolishing water charges and passing abortion legislation are a bit extreme - anyone who votes for a candidate who makes those kind of promises is an idiot.

I disagree about change coming from within. The system us designed to withstand change. Otherwise, change would have happened by now.

heyjude

Sleepy wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would vote for a candidate with zero chance of affecting change. I can kind of see why someone might support a candidate who missed out on a party's nomination this time around in the hope they'd re-join the party after their election (potentially with some extra clout for being "owed one") but electing the likes of the Healy Raes or Michael Lowry only seems to serve as two fingers to the rest of the country.

The era of the king-maker seems to be well and truly passed so what benefit is there to electing these independents? Are people living in the past and naievely hoping for a Gregory Deal for their constituency?

To my mind, the only people who will benefit from the election of these people are themselves and those they get to hire as assistants. They don't even get automatic speaking rights?!

Judging from the number of them returned, it stands to reason that a few of you here voted for them so boards.ie: why did you vote for an Independent? What benefit do you see them being able to bring to your constituency or (ideally) the country as a whole?

I voted for an independent. Did I do it because I thought that they would bring about change? Not really. Did I do it because I was hoping for a Gregory style deal for my constituency ? Perhaps very slightly, though their likely huge numbers would largely rule this out. No, I voted for an independent having ruled out all the alternatives, I wasn't going to be fooled again by manifestos from the main parties that have a shorter shelf life than a ice cube sitting in the sun on a summers day.

Other posters have pointed out that independents are powerless and may not even have speaking rights in the Dail, but to my mind, the most powerless people in the Dail are the diligent, loyal backbenchers who tirelessly tow the party line and vote accordingly on every issue, especially when the government has a huge majority as the outgoing government had. Enda Kenny largely pinpointed the issue when he appointed non-Irish speaker Joe McHugh as Minister of State for Gaeltacht Affair, saying that if he didn't appoint him then Donegal wouldn't have a voice at the cabinet table. All major decisions are made by the cabinet or the Economic Management Council ( Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure), so if your constituency does not have a Minister, then according to Enda your constituency/county has no voice where the government are making their decisions.

I am not fortunate enough to live in one of those counties such as Donegal that seem to have a seat at the cabinet reserved for them, its been over a decade since we had a cabinet member in my county not talking about my constituency and none of the candidates from the main parties in my constituency in this election are likely cabinet members. So,being from a county that has been ignored for a decade, it was a choice of voting for one of the main party reps, knowing that they would likely be a powerless backbencher (staying quiet in the hope of a future promotion)when manifesto promises were ditched or voting for an independent, who in all likelihood would be as powerless, but could at least say what he believes and might be able to get a deal.

I won't go into specifics, but the clincher for me, was a large public meeting that I attended a year or two ago about a hot local issue, that was also attended by a local TD. Rumours were circulating that the government/state were about to do something that was very unpopular and the government TD gave assurances that there was no truth to the rumours, yet months later the rumours turned out to be true. Giving that TD the benefit of the doubt, they were being kept in the dark by the government and had no more power or influence on the government than an independent TD would have.

According to Albert Einstein "The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", so having voted for party candidates over and over again and ended up disappointed every time, this time I opted for change.

As to why other people may have voted for independents in such large numbers, I think that it may have something to do with manifesto pledges in 2011 from the incoming government that they were going to change Irish politics for the better by tackling the issue of cronyism, nepotism and corruption within government and the public sector. For while people might be annoyed that certain pledges by that government might have gone unfulfilled through a lack of funds, which people might understand, they have less understanding for the governments' failure not only to tackle cronyism and corruption, but in the case of cronyism, to take it to new levels. New boss same as the old boss...

piuswal

Sleepy wrote: »

The thing is, there's sweet **** all these local issues independents can do for their constituents. They don't have the party backing to enact any change and aren't even entitled to speaking time to whine when their constituency is forgotten about by the parties in government...

That is the problem with Irish National Politics. Many people are convinced that their TDs can get this, that and the other for them. Nearly, if not always, things that they are entitled to anyway but the TDs and political parties have built on this myth over the decades.

Floppybits

Sleepy wrote: »

The thing is, there's sweet **** all these local issues independents can do for their constituents. They don't have the party backing to enact any change and aren't even entitled to speaking time to whine when their constituency is forgotten about by the parties in government...

And do you think your local back bench td can do something an independent cant? Back benchers are nothing but fodder that's all, they keep their head down and vote with the party whether they agree or disagree with party. Cowards the lot of them.

I have more respect for independents than I do for a government backbencher. Also if you look at the work the independents did in the last Dail, they brought a lot more issues to light than any of the back benchers or Party TD's did.

Sleepy

A back-bencher is within the party, his or her voice will be heard at parliamentary party meetings, depending on the individual and their party allies, may have some influence at the cabinet table.

An Independent will be ignored or derided by those with power unless they're in the rare position of being the king-maker and even then, they'll simply be bought with a few trinkets for their constituency rather than having any input into the governance of our country.

If you want to send a bag man to Leinster House to blackmail your countrymen rather than to have a say in the law of the land and the running of the state, be my guest. Unfortunately, a lot of other constituencies have had the same idea so you'll find that in this (and I'd imagine most foreseeable) Dáil(s), there'll be too many petty bag men for any of them to succeed.

You're also ignoring the fact that pretty much (all?) every Taoiseach, Cabinet Member or Junior Minister started out their political career as a back bencher. A back bencher has a ladder they can climb, an independent is in a dead end (unless they join an existing, or help found a new, party).

Floppybits

Sleepy wrote: »

A back-bencher is within the party, his or her voice will be heard at parliamentary party meetings, depending on the individual and their party allies, may have some influence at the cabinet table.

An Independent will be ignored or derided by those with power unless they're in the rare position of being the king-maker and even then, they'll simply be bought with a few trinkets for their constituency rather than having any input into the governance of our country.

If you want to send a bag man to Leinster House to blackmail your countrymen rather than to have a say in the law of the land and the running of the state, be my guest. Unfortunately, a lot of other constituencies have had the same idea so you'll find that in this (and I'd imagine most foreseeable) Dáil(s), there'll be too many petty bag men for any of them to succeed.

You're also ignoring the fact that pretty much (all?) every Taoiseach, Cabinet Member or Junior Minister started out their political career as a back bencher. A back bencher has a ladder they can climb, an independent is in a dead end (unless they join an existing, or help found a new, party).

Tell me diud back benchers bring the penalty points issue up in the rail, did they bring up the dodgey dealing involving siteserv, did they bring up the crap that isgoing on in NAMA. You may think independents are useless but those 3 things would never have seen the light of day only for independents. The most disgusting thing about is that backbenchers is they just kept their heads down and hoped it would all just away.

Back benchers are nothing but yes men. The type of person that it doesn't matter how wrong a decision is, how corrupt a government is they will just keep towing the party line in the hopes that maybe one day they will be in a position where they can benefit.

Enda Kenny has been a TD for 40 years and in most of those 40 years he has done nothing. He has also been a disaster as Taoiseach and the on!y reason he got in that position was because he was a yes man.

Give me a Catherine Murphy or a Roisin shortall over any of those back benchers. There you have politicians who are not afraid to stand up and call things out. In fact roisin shortall was kicked out of her party because of dodgey practices by a certain health minister. This why they took such a hammering in the elections people are no longer putting up with the crap parties are pulling.

Sleepy

I was unaware that Catherine Murphy or Roisin Shorthall had ever been elected as Independents? Didn't they quit their parties once elected? And fight the most recent one as members of a new party?

Ok, so lets assume more people think like you and we have a Dail that comprises of 50% +1 Independent TDs.

How does a government get formed?
And how can it govern?

Or even let's look at today's scenario where so many Independents have been elected. How effectively can a government run without a majority in the Dáil? Should the Minister for Finance have to tell his European counterparts that they need to hold on 10 minutes while he promises Michael Healy Rae another motorway for Kerry in order to secure the necessary votes to enact the relevant legislation to their meeting?

oscarBravo

I was vaguely amused listening to Kevin Boxer Moran on the radio this morning. He was asked who he would vote for as Taoiseach, and said that he couldn't say until he had met with his fellow IA members. When pressed, he insisted that it was up to the Alliance to make the decision as a group, and that he would follow the group's decision.

I was trying to figure out in what way, precisely, the IA isn't a political party.

Sand

I voted for Independents, because Independents are the only people interested in genuine political reform or good government in Ireland. A vote for a whipped party backbencher is an endorsement of Tammany hall politics and corruption. The whole trauma about "stable government" since the election has been the corrupt parties struggling to grasp how they will get their nose in the trough without being able to ignore the Dail.

I guess the question for the people who voted for party candidates is when you voted for FF/FG/LAB/SF...do you expect different results?

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was vaguely amused listening to Kevin Boxer Moran on the radio this morning. He was asked who he would vote for as Taoiseach, and said that he couldn't say until he had met with his fellow IA members. When pressed, he insisted that it was up to the Alliance to make the decision as a group, and that he would follow the group's decision.

I was trying to figure out in what way, precisely, the IA isn't a political party.

Aren't Independents sneered at for having only a local view of politics? My view of non-whipped politics is that politics moves beyond the local once the Dail is empowered. You sneering at evidence of an Independant TD moving beyond your cartoonish view of Independent TDs doesn't make whipped party TDs the sort of international statesmen you wish they were.

flazio

I voted for an independent here in Roscommon /East Galway because I care about a local solution to a national problem, or at the very least, a West of Ireland problem. In the last Government, the junior minister Kathleen Lynch brought about changes to Mental health services which included the closure of recently refurbished 20 bed facility in Ballinasloe which would have served many in both Roscommon and Galway. Instead most people in East Galway were moved to an already chaotic University Hospital in Galway. Denis Naughten is a big supporter of the Hospital services we have here, Portiuncula and Roscommon Hospitals, it's a huge deal not just here but in our old Galway East and parts of Galway West and way above the pay grade of a County Councillor.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

Aren't Independents sneered at for having only a local view of politics? My view of non-whipped politics is that politics moves beyond the local once the Dail is empowered. You sneering at evidence of an Independant TD moving beyond your cartoonish view of Independent TDs doesn't make whipped party TDs the sort of international statesmen you wish they were.

Well, that's a reflexively defensive perspective on my post. Another way of looking at it is that independent TDs find themselves in stronger bargaining positions, and better placed to effect the changes they desire to bring about, by trading in some independence for a stronger collective voice.

You can call that sneering (twice) if it makes you feel better, but for me it answers the question of what would happen if we elected 158 independent TDs: they'd promptly form political parties.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, that's a reflexively defensive perspective on my post. Another way of looking at it is that independent TDs find themselves in stronger bargaining positions, and better placed to effect the changes they desire to bring about, by trading in some independence for a stronger collective voice.

You can call that sneering (twice) if it makes you feel better, but for me it answers the question of what would happen if we elected 158 independent TDs: they'd promptly form political parties.

That is a question - what if we elected 158 independent non-whipped TDs? Who would tell them how to vote in the Dail if not the party?

The electorate

.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

That is a question - what if we elected 158 independent non-whipped TDs? Who would tell them how to vote in the Dail if not the party?

The electorate

.

With respect, that's orthogonal to my point.

Grab All Association

During general, local and EU elections the word is spelled

I N D E P E N D A N T

http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/1444796/original/?width=257&version=1444796
http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/1432988/original/?width=630&version=1432988
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmEZ2ZCCUAEVPy0.jpg

See

I think the thread title should be De raise of da independants

piuswal

flazio wrote: »

I voted for an independent here in Roscommon /East Galway because I care about a local solution to a national problem, or at the very least, a West of Ireland problem. In the last Government, the junior minister Kathleen Lynch brought about changes to Mental health services which included the closure of recently refurbished 20 bed facility in Ballinasloe which would have served many in both Roscommon and Galway. Instead most people in East Galway were moved to an already chaotic University Hospital in Galway. Denis Naughten is a big supporter of the Hospital services we have here, Portiuncula and Roscommon Hospitals, it's a huge deal not just here but in our old Galway East and parts of Galway West and way above the pay grade of a County Councillor.

Is that not a major problem with Irish voters; they want local solutions to problems!

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

With respect, that's orthogonal to my point.

With respect, your "point" was merely to aggrandise yourself as an intelligent person who consistently votes for the same group of corrupt whipped party TDs expecting different results.

Fr Tod Umptious

flazio wrote: »

I voted for an independent here in Roscommon /East Galway because I care about a local solution to a national problem, or at the very least, a West of Ireland problem. In the last Government, the junior minister Kathleen Lynch brought about changes to Mental health services which included the closure of recently refurbished 20 bed facility in Ballinasloe which would have served many in both Roscommon and Galway. Instead most people in East Galway were moved to an already chaotic University Hospital in Galway. Denis Naughten is a big supporter of the Hospital services we have here, Portiuncula and Roscommon Hospitals, it's a huge deal not just here but in our old Galway East and parts of Galway West and way above the pay grade of a County Councillor.

The question you have to ask here is why was the 20 bed unit in Balinasloe refurbished in the first place when it was closed shortly after.

What TD/Minister took credit for that when it was finished ?

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

With respect, your "point" was merely to aggrandise yourself as an intelligent person who consistently votes for the same group of corrupt whipped party TDs expecting different results.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I have the temerity to express a view that's different from yours? How unspeakably arrogant of me.

With slightly less respect: get over yourself. I made a point that you disagreed with, and instead of bothering to make the slightest effort to rebut it, you went full ad-hominem and stuck to your theories in the face of contrary facts.

Yes, the theory is that independents are guided solely by the wishes of their constituents. The fact is that a group of them formed an I-can't-believe-it's-not-a-political-party, had a parliamentary party alliance meeting, and agreed a party alliance line.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I have the temerity to express a view that's different from yours? How unspeakably arrogant of me.

With slightly less respect: get over yourself. I made a point that you disagreed with, and instead of bothering to make the slightest effort to rebut it, you went full ad-hominem and stuck to your theories in the face of contrary facts.

Yes, the theory is that independents are guided solely by the wishes of their constituents. The fact is that a group of them formed an I-can't-believe-it's-not-a-political-party, had a parliamentary party alliance meeting, and agreed a party alliance line.

Calm down, I criticised your expressed opinion, not you personally. So return the favour by not trying to attack me because I express an opinion different to yours. It does nothing to convince me of the validity of your position.

Your point was to pretend to be surprised that non-whipped representatives might find common ground for national policy outside a party structure instead of arguing over whose potholes get filled. The narrative is that Independant TDs cant think beyond the nearest pothole, right? I am not surprised. It has been my view for quite a while that such alliances on national issues *must* be formed.

The key difference is that the TDs forming such alliances are guided by the interests of the electorate who they owe their seat to. They are unified by their agreement with a policy. Whereas whipped party TDs are guided by the interests of the party leadership who they owe their seat to. Their policies are dictated to them by the leadership. Whipped parties are not an alliance of equals.

Now I gather from your posts that you think its *really* bad to vote for a candidate outside the FF/FG/LAB/SF gene pool. But I do then query why you expect anything to change?

Zubeneschamali

Sand wrote: »

It has been my view for quite a while that such alliances on national issues *must* be formed.

These "alliances" are just parties in the early stages of formation. They will either disappear without achieving anything at all (most of them) or turn into actual parties. Some of those parties will also disappear, but may influence a government or two first.

Sand

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

These "alliances" are just parties in the early stages of formation. They will either disappear without achieving anything at all (most of them) or turn into actual parties. Some of those parties will also disappear, but may influence a government or two first.

Or the "alliances" on a particular topic will accomplish their goal, dissolve and different "alliances" form on a different topic. A shared interest on one or two issues does not mean a clear agreement on all issues to form the basis of a party. The key point is that people refused to believe these sort of shared interest alliances could ever arise.

Even if parties do form they will not be coming from the Irish Parliamentary Party thinking that is the root of all modern Irish political parties. Sure, it made sense for Irish MPs in Westminster to band together and vote in a bloc that their leader could use to bargain with the Liberals and Conservatives on Irish issues which would otherwise not get attention. Having a very strict, almost militant discipline on the party whip was understandable. However, that was 130 years ago. Irish parties are no longer a minority in Westminster. The rationale for the whip is gone, and only serves to disenfranchise voters. But parties like FF, FG, LAB, SF...they just cant let go. Its no surprise the Govt so badly misread the view of the electorate in February when they convince themselves that good governments ignore the voters by default.

Parties formed by Independents would be formed by TDs who won their seats as TDs and don't owe it to the party. They would be an alliance of equals, not imposed or dictated by some self appointed leadership which can hold the threat of expulsion over them. Social Democrats are an early example: started with a joint leadership between 3 equally strong founding members, and expressed policy to relax the whip so that members can vote against the party line without it being the end of the world.

People have voted for Independents because the parties do not respond to the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. FF/FG/LAB/SF could all choose to reform themselves and the Dail, but despite repeated instructions to do so they refuse. So people are increasingly turning to Independents to force reform. All the noise over the past few weeks has been the old guard whining and moaning about not being able to do business in the old way, ignoring the Dail and the people for 5 years. They need to pick themselves up, dry their eyes, and get on with it.

Zubeneschamali

Sand wrote: »

Or the "alliances" on a particular topic will accomplish their goal, dissolve and different "alliances" form on a different topic.

If they simply form on an issue, say Water charges, and then dissolve when it is defeated, nothing will ever get done - everything will have to suit a majority of TDs or it cannot happen.

How could an alliance form to pass a Budget, for example? You'd have to buy off a majority of TDs with budget goodies for their constituents.

Sand

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If they simply form on an issue, say Water charges, and then dissolve when it is defeated, nothing will ever get done - everything will have to suit a majority of TDs or it cannot happen.

I don't follow how you think "nothing will ever get done". You still require a majority of the Dail to pass legislation today.

Things will get done, things which can be argued for and evidenced as good policy. I agree with the concept of water charges, but the implementation and communication has been horrible. Absolutely horrible. If the government had to win the support of the Dail on its water charges plans, and failed...wouldn't that have saved them from implementing the worst plan I can recall seeing in my lifetime? The Electronic voting machines were just a sideshow - this is a national infrastructure project that seems to have been drawn up on the back of an envelope.

You see how an empowered Dail helps good governance?

How could an alliance form to pass a Budget, for example? You'd have to buy off a majority of TDs with budget goodies for their constituents.

You seem to have this deep seated view that good governance is something that has to be imposed by a strong man leader over the views of the governed because they're all to be distrusted. The Dail has to be entirely neutered otherwise the gates of hell will open. Debating the finer points of reform is a bit pointless if you you instinctively disagree with any empowerment of the Dail in the first place.

I see this dissonance a lot to be honest. People getting worried about "budget goodies" for TDs when its just taken as a given that a Minister will divert state resources to his constituency to buy votes. When wholly unqualified people are appointed to state boards because of cronyism. It just funny to see people getting worried about trees, when they cant see the entire forest of cronyism that is Irish party politics for the last 90 years. Lets say things turned out as badly as you think? How would you tell the difference to now? Do you think FG/FF/LAB doesnt divide out "budget goodies" for its TDs to buy votes? Do you think the past 90 years of Irish history could be described as "good governance"?

Why do you assume TDs would have to be "bought"? Why can't a policy be argued for and evidenced? Of course, *bad* policies cant be - but that is the purpose of the Dail, to hold the government to account.

As it stands, the Independents are more principled than the parties. When the Independent Alliance met with FG recently, their first concerns were the below:

1. Cronyism has contaminated Irish politics for decades. We believe politicians of all parties have grossly abused their power. We will insist that they surrender the right to make political appointments. This demand includes the end of the practice of a party in government putting its favourites on the boards of state bodies, into the judiciary, the top ranks of the Gardai and the Central Bank Commission. Independent bodies must be set up which exclude all politicians from the ranks of those making such choices. Political patronage and cronyism will end.
2. We will insist on far-reaching Oireachtas Reform, first by ensuring that no party whip is imposed on our own members. The reform must be more than token window- dressing. It will include a fundamental change in the operation of Oireachtas committees, the time given to questions, the abuse of the guillotine and the interaction with Seanad Éireann. We will require any incoming government to implement the Seanad Reform Bill introduced by Independent Alliance Parliamentary Chairman, Senator Feargal Quinn. We will seek a veto on any nominee to the posts of both Attorney General and Minister for Justice.

Other points included the need to properly reform the Irish banking sector, and to bring about transparent government, against insider lobby groups, end of discrimination, Ireland's continued involvement in the EU etc etc.

These are national reform issues, not the sort of pothole filling exercises. But people keep on believing what they want.

As I said, the Independents are gaining support because they are forcing reform to achieve good governance.

Sleepy

How long would it take to formulate a budget, never mind pass one, in such a setup Sand?

Would you be dispensing with ministries entirely? Or how would you propose ministers be appointed? By election from the Dail? If so, what happens when you get Ministers for Health and Education from strong left backgrounds, a centrist Taoiseach and a Right Wing minister for Finance? Can you see a budget being put together? Personally, I'm seeing a political tantrum from one of the far left/right candidates and a new election of ministers being required while the lack of a national budget causes untold damage to our economy...

Sand

Sleepy wrote: »

How long would it take to formulate a budget, never mind pass one, in such a setup Sand?

About as long as it does today, except with more openness to the Dail so any redline issues are identified and addressed early.

Would you be dispensing with ministries entirely?

No, of course not. They should be reformed so its clear that the departments and civil servants ultimately report to the Dail, not the Minister.

Or how would you propose ministers be appointed? By election from the Dail?

Of course. However, the ministers need not be TDs, and indeed its probably best if they were not but were instead individuals experienced and qualified on their assigned field to command widespread respect.

If so, what happens when you get Ministers for Health and Education from strong left backgrounds, a centrist Taoiseach and a Right Wing minister for Finance?

How is that different to parties like FF and FG which contain factions on the right and the left, and regularly go into government with parties like Labour, the PDs, the Greens, etc etc?

Again, I struggle to see how you put together a scenario where a random hodgepodge of Ministers from all over the political spectrum wins the simultaneous support of the same Dail. The Taoiseach and Tanaiste will by definition be the TDs who can win the support of the majority of the Dail. The same majority that inserts a centre-right MoF will not abstain when it comes to MoH or MoE positions.

Ideally, I would think the Ministerial appointments should be approved on a broad take it or leave it option to prevent cherry picking.

Can you see a budget being put together? Personally, I'm seeing a political tantrum from one of the far left/right candidates and a new election of ministers being required while the lack of a national budget causes untold damage to our economy...

I really don't see how the chain of events you describe will come about so yes, I do see a budget being put together. The ministers appointed will reflect the broad views of the Dail that approved them.

It will not be a carve up of Ministerial drivers and pensions for a variety of chancers and gombeenmen whose only qualification is that their Daddy was a major figure in the party 40 years ago. That's where you see a random group of political "views" from high minded principles to petty populism.

But again, people refuse to accept that despite government in Ireland being routinely terrible that things can be done in any other way. If there is no interest in better government, there is little point in debating how to achieve it. I get the sense that some people would prefer to suspend elections entirely as a distraction to the political class.

Sleepy

Sand wrote: »

The Taoiseach and Tanaiste will by definition be the TDs who can win the support of the majority of the Dail.

And herein lies the problem imo.

I can't see a scenario whereby any individual could get a majority when the status quo is having major problems to doing that in a far less fractured Dáil than we'd see in your scenario. Were there no Independents elected, we'd have a government right now.

Sand

Sleepy wrote: »

And herein lies the problem imo.

I can't see a scenario whereby any individual could get a majority when the status quo is having major problems to doing that in a far less fractured Dáil than we'd see in your scenario. Were there no Independents elected, we'd have a government right now.

What exactly do you think my scenario is?

We've already established that even where Independents are elected they find common cause on national issues like electing the Taoiseach (Independent Alliance), and have even begun to form parties like the Social Democrats which relax the whip on their members.

As it is, we still have a government right now which will continue to serve until a new one is nominated. And FG could form a new government tomorrow, but unless FF go into government with them they would have to do so by winning the support of the Dail, not ignoring it.

I think that is a perfectly good outcome for empowerment of the Dail, and good governance in Ireland.

So FG just need to dry their eyes and get on with it.

Sleepy

I thought you were in favour of a Dail comprised entirely of Independents?

How long do you think FG could possibly last in a minority government? Labour, the Soc Dems, the Green Party and a handful of Independents can probably be trusted to take each motion on it's merits but the numbers till don't add up to a majority.

Sinn Fein and the Peoples Front of Judea on the far left wouldn't vote in favour of a FG motion even if it were lifted directly from their own manifestos.

The majority of the Independents won't vote for anything until they've been bought with tokenistic goodies for their constituency (whether they agree with the legislation or not) and FF will be waiting in the long grass for the first opportunity to take down the government when their analysts tell them it'll ensure a higher vote (regardless of the rights or wrongs of the legislation).

The result? A government that can't govern, another general election inside 6 months and panicked markets.

Sand

Sleepy wrote: »

I thought you were in favour of a Dail comprised entirely of Independents?

No, I'm in favour of an empowered Dail to achieve good governance and to hold the government to account. I support the election of Independents because it weakens the old guard, corrupt, whipped parties and strengthens the reformist element of the Dail.

I don't care if the Dail has 0 or 158 Independents once reform is achieved.

How long do you think FG could possibly last in a minority government? Labour, the Soc Dems, the Green Party and a handful of Independents can probably be trusted to take each motion on it's merits but the numbers till don't add up to a majority.

They could also rely on FF to do likewise. FF want to be a party of government, they wont do well out of pursuing the lunatic fringe vote: SF and the far left groups have that sewn up.

FG have 50 seats. They need 30 from the remaining 108 seats to pass legislation. Say 30 of those are writeoffs (SF/AAA/WP), that still leaves 78 potential votes. They only need to put together a good enough argument for their policy to convince a minority of those 78 that its a good policy to pass it.

Of course, FG would have to pursue policies that can be supported by evidence rather than whatever diverts state resources to their constituency...but that's the point.

Sinn Fein and the Peoples Front of Judea on the far left wouldn't vote in favour of a FG motion even if it were lifted directly from their own manifestos.

Nope, probably not but they are a minority.

The majority of the Independents won't vote for anything until they've been bought with tokenistic goodies for their constituency (whether they agree with the legislation or not)

The Independent Alliance has named their price in the charter for change which I quoted from earlier. It is all national and international policy issues mainly focusing on Dail reform and an end to cronyism, not pothole filling.

and FF will be waiting in the long grass for the first opportunity to take down the government when their analysts tell them it'll ensure a higher vote (regardless of the rights or wrongs of the legislation).

I think FF might be more aware that they and FG together get less than 50% of the vote these days. Is there going to be some sudden shift in voting patterns whereby FF get 70-80 seats next time out? Because that's the only result that will change the situation FF is in.

They will also be aware that whoever is blamed for bringing the government down for a few marginal seats will likely get a kicking from the electorate.

The result? A government that can't govern, another general election inside 6 months and panicked markets.

Ah please, that's overly dramatic. The markets are influenced by ECB and EU policy, not by Irish domestic policies.

The more likely scenario is a government that is held accountable to the Dail. A very good outcome for the Irish citizen as it will mean better policies than 3 or 4 lads in an "economic council" making up plans on the back of an envelope and getting them rubberstamped by a whipped Dail with no debate or discussion.

donspeekinglesh

Sleepy wrote: »

I was unaware that Catherine Murphy or Roisin Shorthall had ever been elected as Independents? Didn't they quit their parties once elected? And fight the most recent one as members of a new party?

Catherine Murphy left Labour in 2003, she won local and national elections as an independent.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

Of course, FG would have to pursue policies that can be supported by evidence rather than whatever diverts state resources to their constituency...

This is the cornerstone of your argument, and it seems to be an article of faith rather than something for which there's any evidence.

Your theory is that individual TDs can be persuaded to vote for something by presenting them with evidence that it's a good idea. Let me ask you this: if an independent TD was convinced that something was a good idea, but knew that his constituents would be angry about it, do you think he'd still vote for it?

I'm guessing your follow-up argument is that the TD can convince the electorate by evidence and reasoned argument that the idea is a good one, but again that just leads me to believe that you haven't met many voters.

nice_guy80

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is the cornerstone of your argument, and it seems to be an article of faith rather than something for which there's any evidence.

Your theory is that individual TDs can be persuaded to vote for something by presenting them with evidence that it's a good idea. Let me ask you this: if an independent TD was convinced that something was a good idea, but knew that his constituents would be angry about it, do you think he'd still vote for it?

I'm guessing your follow-up argument is that the TD can convince the electorate by evidence and reasoned argument that the idea is a good one, but again that just leads me to believe that you haven't met many voters.

The opposite is also true
FG, FF and Lab backbenchers are often whipped into passing legislation they know will be hugely unpopular with constituents. And in many cases openly opposed in their constituency eg closing of Roscommon A&E and the fallout.

I'd have enough faith in the Independent TDs that they are sensible enough to know what is in the interests of the country will also usually be in their constituents best interests.

It is interesting times that so many of them hold the balance of power.

Zubeneschamali

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I'd have enough faith in the Independent TDs that they are sensible enough to know what is in the interests of the country will also usually be in their constituents best interests.

How many of them are independent precisely because they refused to vote against the narrow interests of their constituents?

oscarBravo

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I'd have enough faith in the Independent TDs that they are sensible enough to know what is in the interests of the country will also usually be in their constituents best interests.

What's the basis for that faith?

Sleepy

nice_guy80 wrote: »

It is interesting times that so many of them hold the balance of power.

How do you make those numbers work? Even were FG to shower every independents constituency with goodies, they'd still be well short of a majority.

The deals done with Tony Gregory and Jackie Healy Rae back in the day are having a far wider impact on national politics than was ever envisaged at the time. Seeing how much more than their fair share of the pot a constituency could get if they elected an independent who lucked out and ended up being in a position to be a kingmaker certainly seems to have captured the imagination of a large section of the electorate.

If I were involved in the negotiations between FF / FG I'd be touting this as a benefit of the parties working together in a coalition. Leaving the likes of the Healey Raes out in the cold while providing any party TD elected in the constituency with a win or two, would remind some of the electorate that, outside of very unusual circumstances, voting for independent candidates leaves your constituency under-represented in the Dáil and encourage them back to voting for parties ahead of independents. I'm not necessarily saying that this would be a good thing (though I'd personally celebrate seeing the Healey Raes and Lowrys of this world lose their seats) but it would be a benefit to FF and FG were they to agree to work together...

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is the cornerstone of your argument, and it seems to be an article of faith rather than something for which there's any evidence.

Your theory is that individual TDs can be persuaded to vote for something by presenting them with evidence that it's a good idea. Let me ask you this: if an independent TD was convinced that something was a good idea, but knew that his constituents would be angry about it, do you think he'd still vote for it?

I'm guessing your follow-up argument is that the TD can convince the electorate by evidence and reasoned argument that the idea is a good one, but again that just leads me to believe that you haven't met many voters.

Allowing for the reality that our politicians are drawn from the same people as our voters, let me ask you a question. If you so distrust Irish people making decisions for the best interests of the nation, why do you argue for giving 3 or 4 of them power to make laws over you with little accountability or oversight?

That's a huge amount of faith you are expressing in people you don't trust.

And lets face it, if you've been paying attention, its worked out pretty horribly for the national interest.