'Supporting' a Minority Government vs Governing

The Green Party's 2 elected TDs today join the Social Democrat's 3 elected TDs in their recent suggestion that they might 'support' a Minority Government but would not be willing to enter Government.

The logic here is risible.

We might support a Government from Opposition - where we cannot have direct input on their policies, but we would not support that same Government from the same benches, where we would have better opportunity to directly shape the legislation.

Are we entering into (or already at!) a realm of 'opposition parties' who believe that they have the rights to shape legislation, but not the responsibility of taking ownership of it?

If this logic becomes normal, we are going to make forming an actual Government extremely difficult in the future, as each TD elected who refuses to entertain the possibility of sitting on the Government bench reduces the number of available TDs that can be found to attempt to govern.

galljga1

I find it risible that I am in agreement with the Healy-Raes on this point.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

Are we entering into (or already at!) a realm of 'opposition parties' who believe that they have the rights to shape legislation, but not the responsibility of taking ownership of it?

That is where we are, but it is also what the people voted for & feel.

Govern the nation.... become unpopular.
Hurl from the ditch.... popularity grows.

But the Greens are right, the opposition can & do impact on the government agenda.


Taken to it's extreme, we will have a parliament of 158 opposition TDs & no government...... but the other narrative spread throughout the campaign (the one saying that the government can have no impact on economic performance) reinforces this situation we are finding ourselves in.

FreudianSlippers

I feel a minority government is preferable to a majority at the moment. We have for far too long has too powerful an executive branch in this country who shoehorn legislation whilst sitting on other legislation for years. A true legislative branch without an overly powerful majority executive might mean we get meaningful change via legislation in this country for the first time in years.

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

mean we get meaningful change via legislation in this country for the first time in years.

like what?

I'm all for the removal of whipping and contrarian-ism for the sake of contrarian-ism, but this doesn't necessarily require minority governments?

Fascinating Data Visualisation here about American Politics imo.

I feel the system we've seen being abused over the past 20 years leads directly to this partisanship, and beyond towards utter entrenchment.

It's perverse. The elected officials (that includes the Opposition!) are there to make the correct decision on behalf of the people of the country. It doesn't matter who presents that legislative change if it is required. If it is an Independent TD elected on a single issue, or the majority party; the legislation deserves to be rationally considered by each and every TD and they should vote appropriately.

From this, we shouldn't find it at all odd if an opposition proposed bill is passed, or a Government proposed bill fails to pass. These ought to be totally normal events in politics!

Of course, the whip is required for specific 'party red lines' as otherwise we're just looking at 158 Independent TDs with no point in Parties, but I think some mature consideration of the above is more than necessary at this stage.

The worry I have about any Minority Government plan is that we don't have this maturity yet. A plug being pulled on the back of a simple bill failing to pass would not surprise me in the slightest.

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

The Green Party's 2 elected TDs today join the Social Democrat's 3 elected TDs in their recent suggestion that they might 'support' a Minority Government but would not be willing to enter Government.

The logic here is risible.


Are we entering into (or already at!) a realm of 'opposition parties' who believe that they have the rights to shape legislation, but not the responsibility of taking ownership of it?

If this logic becomes normal, we are going to make forming an actual Government extremely difficult in the future, as each TD elected who refuses to entertain the possibility of sitting on the Government bench reduces the number of available TDs that can be found to attempt to govern.

It is getting close to the situation where nearly every government TD will have a Ministry of some kind or some other position.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

like what?

I'm not sure, but certainly where will be a real debate and cross-party input into legislation which has not existed in any significant majority government. Sure, they debate until they turn blue but at the end of the day with a significant government majority they can do what they want.

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure, but certainly where will be a real debate and cross-party input into legislation which has not existed in any significant majority government. Sure, they debate until they turn blue but at the end of the day with a significant government majority they can do what they want.

This makes the assumption that anything the opposition have to offer is superior.

What was it about the last 5 years that suggested that the opposition knew what they were doing and were going to improve Ireland.
tbh, I think the contrary was very much in evidence.

If a budget bill is tabled by the government and it submits that the government deficit should continue it's downward trajectory, opposition input (as per their stated desire) can overturn this, instead creating an expanded deficit.

What is right about this?
Or to put it another way, what is so wrong with a majority government that pandering to the whim populists & pseudo-socialists, who have zero responsibility wrt consequences seems like a better alternative?

We should just have 158 person government, do away with the idea of ministers & taoiseach.
It's the only way there can be collective responsibility.

Good loser

I think all this 'reform' is so much hot air.

I've had experience implementing a number of Acts of parliament. Most of these were pretty incomprehensible. To think more than one or two TDs would have any understanding of their import is fanciful in the extreme.

Regardless of any intentions to do the best for the country.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm all for the removal of whipping and contrarian-ism for the sake of contrarian-ism, but this doesn't necessarily require minority governments?

As long as the Dail's rule mandate that losing the party whip means losing one's speaking rights for the remainder of the Dail term, this is unfortunately a necessity.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As long as the Dail's rule mandate that losing the party whip means losing one's speaking rights for the remainder of the Dail term, this is unfortunately a necessity.

Would this not be a terribly trivial rule to change?

On the topic of the thread title, this 'tactical support' vs 'implicit support' has gotten even more obvious and bizarre!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/fianna-fail-and-fine-gael-clash-after-partnership-government-talks-dramatically-collapse-34607524.html

It appears that FF are more interested in an arrangement where either themselves or FG lead a minority government, (which absolutely requires the support of the other party from the opposition benches) than in supporting from those same benches.

In order of importance (imo)
Country>Constituency>Party>Person

It appears that 'Party' has taken on an enormously different weighting from what we might hope though!

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Would this not be a terribly trivial rule to change?

Trivial as in easy to change, or trivial as in doesn't matter?

Losing your right to represent the people who elected you just because you're not part of a group of seven or more is a serious affront to democracy in my view. Every TD in the Dail is elected by the people of Ireland and should have as much right as any of the others to do their job.

If what you meant by trivial is "easy to do", then yes, it would be. That isn't the issue, the issue is that the leaders of the parties don't want to loosen their grip on power, so of course it won't happen until we get a Dail comprised of more independents who will vote for such a change.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Trivial as in easy to change, or trivial as in doesn't matter?

Losing your right to represent the people who elected you just because you're not part of a group of seven or more is a serious affront to democracy in my view. Every TD in the Dail is elected by the people of Ireland and should have as much right as any of the others to do their job.

If what you meant by trivial is "easy to do", then yes, it would be. That isn't the issue, the issue is that the leaders of the parties don't want to loosen their grip on power, so of course it won't happen until we get a Dail comprised of more independents who will vote for such a change.

Yes, trivial as in easy to do. If it's easy to do, we should be pressurising them into making that change.

It's would be a materially impacting change and in the present and indeed likely coming era of minority governments, fractured coalitions and plentiful disparate groups in the Dáil it will be important that casual disagreements don't preclude progress.

I don't see how a Dáil of independents would be the only possible way for this to emerge as a rational change either. We are hearing that there are divisions within the major parties on a raft of issues, a removal of said rule allows voicing those opinions through the medium that they ought to.

Again, we the people need to become far more okay with, and accustomed to, Government's failing to get bills through. It is perfectly normal for this to happen.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see how a Dáil of independents would be the only possible way for this to emerge as a rational change either.

For the record, even though I persistently tout my desire for a majority independent Dail, that is only and purely based on the assumption that the leadership of the parties will not willingly loosen their strangleholds on their members' voting decisions.

If we had more parties like the Social Democrats and Renua, I would have far less reason to be so vehemently pro-independent.

I just can't stand the current "write letters to your TD, protest outside the Dail, organise local activist campaigns, but if a small cabal within a slightly larger cabal (the EMC within the cabinet) say no, that's the end of that" paradirm. Representative democracy is supposed to involve the house controlling the executive, not the reverse.

Again, we the people need to become far more okay with, and accustomed to, Government's failing to get bills through. It is perfectly normal for this to happen.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Case in point, all this ridiculous "a minority coalition partner only has two choices, tow the line or bring down the government" BS we got any time Labour refused to put a stop to a corrupt or crappy decision from FG during the last Dail. These are not the only options available. The third option, which as you say is the norm in pretty much every other European country (including Britain, on which our own system is modelled) is for them to say "look, we're still in this together and we'll still support you, but this is a red line issue. X minister f*cked up and has to go", or "this bill is a disaster and we will not support it. Rewrite it, allow amendments, and come back to us. Meanwhile, let's get on with the rest of the programme for government".

If we ended up with a system like that, I'd be far more open to the idea of majority governments. The reason I am currently an "independent only" voter is because literally none of the parties (apart from the SDs who have no candidates in my constituency, and Renua to which I gave, I think, my third preference to) are willing to cede the dictatorship of the leadership to the body of TDs, as they're supposed to.

Fr Tod Umptious

This is exactly the reason why a minority Government supported by independents is going to be on shaky ground.
Some are pulling out before it has even started

From RTE

Halligan withdraws from talks in protest over hospital issue

Independent TD John Halligan, meanwhile, has pulled out of the talks with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael over priorities for government.

The Independent Alliance had been discussing policy papers with the two main parties.

Mr Halligan said this morning he was withdrawing in protest over the failure to provide cardiac emergency services at Waterford University Hospital

FG - Want the lead role, have been desperately trying to convince anyone to come aboard.
FF - Want to throw tomatoes.
SF - Want someone to ask them to be in the show, just so they can say no. Nobody would ever ask though.
PBP/AAA - Want to burn the whole thing to the ground.
LAB - Don't want to be in the show, but if they are needed they will suffer the ignominy of governing.
SD - Have absolutely explicitly ruled out being anywhere near the stage.
Green - Backed down from originally appearing interested in taking a small piece of the show.
IA - Who knows?
Other Independents - See above.
Renua - Would love to have been given the chance to say no.

Close enough summation of where we're at right now?

Social Democrat TD Catherine Murphy

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0418/782509-government-talks-resume/

Social Democrat TD Catherine Murphy wrote:

I think we feel we can play a more productive role from the opposition benches.

:mad:

K-9

Losing a vote won't be as big an issue with a minority Government so that should be some help with the whip system. Obviously FF can't go on voting against every single thing or it's pointless, even 30/40% of votes might make things difficult as it will be hard to implement policy and get things done. If FF use it conscientiously losing a few votes will be fine.

Problem will be the inevitable votes of no confidence, committing to 3 budgets makes you it difficult to pull out over something like the Shatter or Reilly cases in the previous Government.

Arise Katherine Zappone TD. Someone who understands that being in Government gives you a bigger say in shaping and helping the country!

https://twitter.com/KZapponeTD/status/722465588312981504
Direct quote

I did not enter politics to retain my seat by opposing everything, I entered politics to create a positive change and achieve greater equality.

Now, if we could get 20 or 30 others to cop on and figure this bit out, we might be able to get a Government together.

kieranhr

There needs to be a Taoiseach, and there needs to be a cabinet, but there doesn't need to be a government. If there's no government, then every TD and party is free to vote in accordance with whether they think a particular piece of legislation is a good idea or not, regardless of who suggested it.

kieranhr

Option A - "Here's your €150m for a motorway from your constituency to Limerick. Now you have to vote with us on every issue regardless of your personal opinion."

Option B - "Feel free to propose your motion for a €150m motorway, and the Dail will take a vote on it, same as they do for every other issue."

K-9

kieranhr wrote: »

There needs to be a Taoiseach, and there needs to be a cabinet, but there doesn't need to be a government. If there's no government, then every TD and party is free to vote in accordance with whether they think a particular piece of legislation is a good idea or not, regardless of who suggested it.

What Ministers will say is they need a programme for Government and some confidence that it will get passed, so there has to be a responsible support for a minority Government. It also becomes easy for SF and the AAA to oppose everything and go told ye so when something goes wrong.

Still, the Haughey minority Government worked despite losing a few votes and he brought it down over something that they could have worked on. It can work, just takes an attitude adjustment from what they are used to.

kieranhr

K-9 wrote: »

What Ministers will say is they need a programme for Government and some confidence that it will get passed, so there has to be a responsible support for a minority Government.

The first part is true; the second, not necessarily. There would still be a programme for Government, but it would be discussed and agreed with the Dail, not dictated by one or two parties and a handful of independents.

K-9

Yeah, discussion and agreement would require a majority support. SF and AAA look set to oppose everything in this Dail, so with your idea that would need to stop.

kieranhr

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, discussion and agreement would require a majority support. SF and AAA look set to oppose everything in this Dail, so with your idea that would need to stop.

Which I think would happen organically, they would be forced to play ball. Otherwise the electorate will note that they oppose everything without ever proposing anything, so what use are they.

BoJack Horseman

kieranhr wrote: »

Otherwise the electorate will note that they oppose everything without ever proposing anything, so what use are they.

That has been their tactic for decades now & it's served them well.
Why change a winning formula?

kieranhr

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That has been their tactic for decades now & it's served them well.
Why change a winning formula?

Because it'll be a whole new ball game, with different goalposts. There is a protest vote to be won by opposing the government. But if there's no government, what would they be protesting against? Democracy itself?

K-9

kieranhr wrote: »

Because it'll be a whole new ball game, with different goalposts. There is a protest vote to be won by opposing the government. But if there's no government, what would they be protesting against? Democracy itself?

There'll always be a protest vote, AAA type, some people like to watch the world burn! It's amazing to watch politicians of different hues coming together to work on Dáil procedures but we'll be back to the grand standing and point scoring if we get a Government elected next week.

An Ciarraioch

Apparently in the first SNP Holyrood government, they only won 42 seats, so required consultation with Greens and Tories to pass legislation. Even SF said this week that they could support bills in accordance with their policies, so between SF, FF, Labour, Greens, Soc Dems and independents, it could well work for 18 months to two years, if FF play ball.

kieranhr

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Even SF said this week that they could support bills in accordance with their policies.

That one sentence is a shocking indictment of our existing system, but also hopefully an indication that it's going to get better.