What do people want from their politicians?

JohnnyFlash

We see a lot of threads around here about how dishonourable and downright vile our politicians are. I’ve always found it unusual that the plain people of Ireland - a people of limitless honour, honesty, morality and integrity appear to vote for politicians who don’t share these attributes.

So I’m wondering what the political animals in CA want from a politician? For example, should they be:

Paid less or paid more.
Not allowed be from certain professions.
Have to take a vow of poverty.
Not be allowed be a publican, landlord, or secondary school teacher.
Not be allowed claim expenses.
Have to stay in specially designated ‘digs’ if overnighting in Dublin.
Not be allowed go on foreign holidays.
Not be allowed be a politician if they happen to come from a political ‘dynasty’.
Not be entitled to a pension.


You see I happen to know a good few TDs (these are the circles I happen to move in) and would describe them as some of the most decent, hard working and selfless people I know. It’s a very tough job where you are under constant scrutiny, and I can think of a load of easier ways to make 100k a year. But I appear to be in a minority - the View seems to be that politicians are all out to feather their own nest (despite the fact that many of them take a significant pay cut to become a TD or hand over the running of their business).

Would any of the more frequent posters around here ever consider running for office, and what would you all do different?

_Brian

I think I “most” politicians start with an honest goal in mind.

Many are corrupted by money from others.
Many get lazy over time, particularly those from dynasty families where it takes little bit public appearances at funerals to be re-elected.

Many get worn down by being tarred with the same brush as the previous two categories.

In many ways Ireland is too small to have an efficient political system free from parish pump politics.

begsbyOnaTrain

I think we need some term limits for how long one can be in the Dail and Senate. Too often people spend their whole bloody lives in the political bubble and are completely detached from reality.

The Satanist

I think they should all be executed so that I can assume the throne without further ado.

CageWager

Yeah, when you think about politicians, should they be:

Able to use a swing without falling off
Immune from making fraudulent expense claims
Able to sit in their own seat
Cast only their own vote

Its pure madness what we expect from elected representatives these days.

PhilOssophy

Irish people are too tribal. We want our local TD to be on the end of the phone to sort out the bus pass, medical card, and ideally be a sneaky, conniving ****
We want our road fixed more than we want the best Brexit deal for Ireland.
If a local TD was Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and streamlined the entire public sector into an efficient workable model, people would say "ah but poor Mary Murphy down the road, she lost her job" even though the whole office knew she hadn't worked in 30 years.
I had an argument with somebody recently where I reasoned that Irish people get the politicians we deserve and want.
Clever people wouldn't even think about going into politics.

Its not just in Ireland though, I lived in Canada and they were just as useless there. And look at Trump, Boris.

I never see why any county needs 4-5 TD's. It is way too many.

TDs should not be paid more, but their job brief needs to change away from local matters.

Pauliedragon

We're very parochial people. How many people do you hear bitch and moan the whole time ff/fg they're in power but will still vote in the guy at an election who's with said party cause he's a nice down at supervalu every Sunday doin the shopping. Nothing to do with his policies.

PhilOssophy

Pauliedragon wrote: »

We're very parochial people. How many people do you hear bitch and moan the whole time ff/fg they're in power but will still vote in the guy at an election who's with said party cause he's a nice down at supervalu every Sunday doin the shopping. Nothing to do with his policies.

That is because they actually don't stand for any policies, just go to funerals locally and get the local GAA club a grant.

Most of them wouldn't understand even the tiniest bit about politics outside their own 5km radius. Ask them about the various climate accord, trade deals, etc and they would not even know what they were about.

EmmetSpiceland

I’d like to see one, and only one, pension for “public service”.

I’d also like to see both salary and pension reform for politicians and their “staff”. We are paying well over the odds for what we are getting from our public servants, especially the politicians.

begsbyOnaTrain

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I never see why any county needs 4-5 TD's. It is way too many.

So I can vote in the following order:

1 - The local crook, who'll get things done for the area (roads, sell his vote for infrastructure deals etc.)
2 - Senior FGer, so that if they are the biggest party he may get a ministerial position and therefore get stuff for the local area.
3 - Senior FFer, so that if they are the biggest party he may get a ministerial position and therefore get stuff for the local area.
4 - Mad leftie - So that they can find tooth and nail against water tax, local rates (i.e. anything standard in most Western democracies)
5 - Secondary FGer/FFer depending on which way the polls are indicating who'll win so that you might have naother chance at a junior minister for your area.

Honestly, it's like you lot have no idea how to vote.

Pauliedragon

PhilOssophy wrote: »

That is because they actually don't stand for any policies, just go to funerals locally and get the local GAA club a grant.

Most of them wouldn't understand even the tiniest bit about politics outside their own 5km radius. Ask them about the various climate accord, trade deals, etc and they would not even know what they were about.

That's partly my point. We shouldn't be voting for people like that but the alternative will probably be the same. How do we fix that I don't have a clue to be honest. When I lived in Oz for example there is a marked difference between the 2 major parties so there's more swing voters so more people vote based on what they believe the winner will do best. Our 2 just seem to both as bad as each other so I'll just tick a box on the day and see what happens attitude with some people.

PhilOssophy

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

So I can vote in the following order:

1 - The local crook, who'll get things done for the area (roads, sell his vote for infrastructure deals etc.)
2 - Senior FGer, so that if they are the biggest party he may get a ministerial position and therefore get stuff for the local area.
3 - Senior FFer, so that if they are the biggest party he may get a ministerial position and therefore get stuff for the local area.
4 - Mad leftie - So that they can find tooth and nail against water tax, local rates (i.e. anything standard in most Western democracies)
5 - Secondary FGer/FFer depending on which way the polls are indicating who'll win so that you might have naother chance at a junior minister for your area.

Honestly, it's like you lot have no idea how to vote.

So your voting order is
1. Independent (Lowry, Healy-Rae, Mick)
2/3 Senior FG / FF
4. PBP
5. Second FG/FF.

The big question though is did the senior FF / FG not do enough when they got you the planning permission that the #1 snake said he couldn't get you? Also the 2nd FG/FF - surely you are not as laissez-faire as that, you are either a good FG or a good FF man, you can't be both.

Plumbthedepths

Many TD's take a significant pay cut when they become TD's?
Large number of TD's are teachers by profession. MM teacher, Enda Kenny teacher, Michael Noonan teacher, Mary Mitchell O' Connor teacher. Lots more but you get the point. I may be wrong but does the teacher salary scale reach 100k plus expenses?
I would of course be interested to know which TD's are captains of industry which through a selfless act of servitude made such a sacrifice to survive on the pittance our elected representatives are paid.

begsbyOnaTrain

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Also the 2nd FG/FF - surely you are not as laissez-faire as that, you are either a good FG or a good FF man, you can't be both.

You gotta keep your constituency "unsafe" and "up for play". If FF get in and your place is a solid FG land, then you'll get funk all. If they think however that they may gain a second/third seat next time, say hello to loads of money pouring your way. Flip flop for when FG are in power.

James Brown

1) Accountability.
2) Consequences.
3) One pension, no lump sums.

EmmetSpiceland

Matt Barrett wrote: »

1) Accountability.
2) Consequences.
3) One pension, no lump sums.

Why no lump sums?

RobbingBandit

Indoctrinated into time honoured traditional values pillage plunder lie cheat and steal lie lie lie some more and get drunk in a subsidised bar, vote for the party manifestoes or you're out on your arse.

It's a bloody shambles of a system where no party exists that differs from another enough to do something about the previous regimes mistakes they just build upon them changing things slightly enough until they themselves fudge it up then we have those cretins back in power.

James Brown

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Why no lump sums?

Because they get a nice enough ride off the tax payer as is IMO.

EmmetSpiceland

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because they get a nice enough ride off the tax payer as is IMO.

Ah, sorry, I thought you meant all lump sums, “private” pensions included.

The lump sum payment, unless the person has “additional” contributions, bring down the amount of the pension payments.

A much bigger issue for me, M, is the full pension they receive after only a “handful” of years. The cost of that is astronomical.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because they get a nice enough ride off the tax payer as is IMO.

So you are suggesting that politicians be treated less favourably than public servants?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are suggesting that politicians be treated less favourably than public servants?

Blanch I know you have difficulties staying on track but we're talking about politicians. If you want to discuss job for life no mark public servants and how good they have it, move on.

Geuze

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I’d like to see one, and only one, pension for “public service”.

I’d also like to see both salary and pension reform for politicians and their “staff”. We are paying well over the odds for what we are getting from our public servants, especially the politicians.

There is just one pension scheme, in a sense.

If a teacher becomes a principal, should she only ever get a teachers pension, or should she get an extra pension for being a principal?

It's the same idea.

A TD gets a regular TD pension.

For the time they are a Minister they get an extra pension in respect of that time.

Are you suggesting that there be no such thing as Ministerial pensions, and only TD pensions?

Geuze

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

A much bigger issue for me, M, is the full pension they receive after only a “handful” of years. The cost of that is astronomical.

A fair point.

What should be full service for a TD pension?

Geuze

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Indoctrinated into time honoured traditional values pillage plunder lie cheat and steal lie lie lie some more and get drunk in a subsidised bar,

For the hundreth time, the Oireachtas bar IS NOT SUBSIDISED.

James Brown

Geuze wrote: »

For the hundreth time, the Oireachtas bar IS NOT SUBSIDISED.

Does it matter either way if they never pay the tab?

Geuze

Matt Barrett wrote: »

3) One pension, no lump sums.

Should all pension lump-sums, across society, be abolished?

If so, pension payments will have to rise to compensate.

EmmetSpiceland

Geuze wrote: »

There is just one pension scheme, in a sense.

If a teacher becomes a principal, should she only ever get a teachers pension, or should she get an extra pension for being a principal?

It's the same idea.

A TD gets a regular TD pension.

For the time they are a Minister they get an extra pension in respect of that time.

Are you suggesting that there be no such thing as Ministerial pensions, and only TD pensions?

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. The pension should be based on salary and service. If there’s career averaging, so be it.

And there should be no full pensions for a handful of years service.

To be honest, the old pensions are dinosaurs. And massively expensive dinosaurs at that. They need to wind then all up and bring in a generous “defined contribution” setup.

James Brown

Geuze wrote: »

Should all pension lump-sums, across society, be abolished?

If so, pension payments will have to rise to compensate.

No.
I'm talking lump sums based on roles they played. One pension based on the salary of the highest post they held seems fair.

EmmetSpiceland

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No.
I'm talking lump sums based on roles they played. One pension based on the salary of the highest post they held seems fair.

Like the one the “outgoing” county councillor‘s got recently? Thought that was crazy, myself.

James Brown

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Like the one the “outgoing” county councillor‘s got recently? Thought that was crazy, myself.

Not familiar.

EmmetSpiceland

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not familiar.

Can only find Newstalk covering it, any other coverage comes from 2014. It’s classed as a retirement payment.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/local-councillors-lost-seats-receive-retirement-payments-e6m-914609