General Irish politics discussion thread

If they truly want reform then they have to convince the people to give them the powers.

Sitting back saying ‘shure we can do nothing’ is obscene. But then they are part of the same system of virtually no accountability.

As Stanley is saying on Prime Time it looks like a case involving false accounting. If an ordinary company did that they’d have the tax office down on them and possibly the fraud squad.

The question was put to the people in a referendum and they rejected it, that is the reason why the Committee can't compel her, nothing to do with the government or the legislators.

You have been corrected on that lie already.

Sure, blame the people.

One of the vagaries of our electoral system is that even if most of the public don't vote for some of these people they can still get back into powerful positions.

Proper oversignt and observance of rules and proper accountability would negate that though. We all have witnessed these politicians circling the wagons to protect themselves. We can all see how the regulatory and disciplinary organs are hampered and set up to fail in their proper oversight roles.

We can all see and hear the lip service paid to reform and giving more power to regulatory agencies, but nothing is ever done. How long have SIPO been calling for more powers for instance?

Still we wait.

It isn't the public who are protecting dodgy TD's.

The electoral system can see the public reject a TD but they still find themselves elected in subsequent counts. I.E. the electorate can express an opinion but that TD can still get in.

That is just an unfortunate side effect of the PR system.

IF TD's properly self regulated set up the regulatory bodies they pay lip service to empowering, then those dodgy TD's would not find themselves in powerful positions. TD's who break the rules would be properly sanctioned and excluded from ministerial positions etc.

Throwing your hands in the air and saying nothing can be done is no excuse.

You misunderstand the point. I didn't say they don't count, they clearly do.

If the vast majority in a constituency don't give a TD their first second or even third preference that TD can still be elected...whether they be SF, FF FG etc.

I.E. the people in the majority may reject somebody but that may not be enough.

Throwing your hands in the air and blaming the electorate solely for the problems is not acceptable IMO

There are steps that can be taken, we have listened to the New Politics/reform bullshit for long enough.

Would be nice to hear some call a spade a spade here.

Ok, keep missing the point to avoid the main point - the lack of movement from TD's themselves on things they promise to do.

The unwillingness of some here to call a spade a spade, speaks for itself.

Yes, I addressed the fact that you haven't commented here.

Why are you making stuff up continually about posters.

I said nothing - ZILCH about FPTP.

I said nothing about getting rid of PR.

I did mention one of the side effects/vagaries of PR is that it is frequently not possible for an electorate to rid the constituency of dodgy TD's.

So blaming the electorate for the continued election of dodgy TD's is dis-ingenuous and ignores the fact that time and again TD's have sat on their hands vis a vis reforming and empowering regulation bodies such as SIPO. The 'New Politics' bullshit of FG being a prime example.

Which is not what I said.

I said, the electorate can try to get rid of a dodgy TD’s but sometimes can’t because of a vagary of the PR system.

That is a defence of the electorate, not a delegitimising of elected reps.

Not electoral system is perfect. PR is no different and I have always supported it.

So consider my position on that clarified.

What you actually said:

"The electoral system can see the public reject a TD but they still find themselves elected in subsequent counts."

Absolutely diddly squat about this being a vagary of PR, just a blatant attempt to claim that its somehow not really getting elected if you aren't first.

Standard current day SF playbook, claim that getting elected on a lower count means less than getting elected on the first because its a way to get a simple jibe in at FF/FG TDs that had running mates and hence vote management.

Give it up - you already look silly trying to claim you didn't say what you clearly said; and you'll look sillier if SF get their vote management right next time out and don't leave tens of thousands of votes on the table / transfer them to PBP/SD like last time.