How do we permanently reduce the number of politicans in Ireland?

tdf7187

garrettod wrote: »

Hi,

Having posted a comment about reducing the numbers in a different thread, it got me thinking, how do we actually do this?

In my view, we've too many politicans, be it TDs, Senators or Councillors. The ratio of TDs to population here is far lower than it is in the UK, or quite a few other European counties.

I think if we could half the numbers, we'd :

Half the delays and procrastinating,

Half horsh1te, nonsense and scams,

Half the cost,

And make it a lot easier to keep the rest of them under the microscope.

By cleaning up our political system, making it more efficient and capable, we would then attract better people into it.

Do, what are peoples thoughts and how might we go about it?

At the moment, it seems to me that you'd have to rely on the politicans to implement the idea and that's never going to happen given it doesn't serve their own interests.

I don't favour your project. Sounds weird and borderline fascistic - perhaps you are p.issed off that the right wing lost votes?

As for comparing us to the UK, apart from them being a much larger country that us, the idea that we should follow the UK on politics is...well, nah.

dxhound2005

Pronto63 wrote: »

I voted to keep the Seanad as I think we need an upper house but I think the idea of reducing the number of TD’s is a great one.

As well as the cost factor if we had less TDs they could be kept busy and they could concentrate on running the country and not fixing potholes outside someone’s house.

Depending on population density, a TD could have a wide geographical area to cater for. Four TD's were elected for the so called Sligo Leitrim constituency in 2016. It was actually Sligo Leitrim, South Donegal, and West Cavan. That's a lot of roads and a lot of potholes. How many TD's do you think would suffice for that territory?

The boundaries were redrawn for the election this year, as they are whenever population numbers require.

Dots1982

Pronto63 wrote: »

I voted to keep the Seanad as I think we need an upper house but I think the idea of reducing the number of TD’s is a great one.

Can you provide an example to me of anything the Seanad has done of meaning within the past year?

dxhound2005

Dots1982 wrote: »

Can you provide an example to me of anything the Seanad has done of meaning within the past year?

In bicameral systems the Upper House usually cannot step on the toes of the Lower House. Normally because it is not put in place by universal franchise. So don't expect it to initiate legislation or produce anything else of "meaning".

An upper house is usually different from the lower house in at least one of the following respects (though they vary among jurisdictions):

Powers:

In a parliamentary system, it often has much less power than the lower house. Therefore, in certain countries the Upper House
votes on only limited legislative matters, such as constitutional amendments,
cannot initiate most kinds of legislation, especially those pertaining to supply/money,
cannot vote a motion of no confidence against the government (or such an act is much less common), while the lower house always can.

L1011

There has actually been occasional useful change initiated from the Seanad. However, I voted to get rid of it and people we conned with the idea of "vote no for reform!" when no reform was ever going to happen.

garrettod

threeball wrote: »

The eejits and shysters are normally the first past the post. We could end up with a Dail with nothing but them.

Funny, I actually think it would help reduce the number that we currently have.

Perhaps more importantly, it would help keep the next generation of the "entitled" out of the Dail, because there would be less seats up for grabs, so people would have to impress to get elected, rather than just have a certain secondname.