What do we want politicians to do?

One respectfully suggests that the electorate act in a contradictory way. On one hand there is an X factor type aspect and there is also a very skilled and intelligent strand.

Broadly speaking however, I would respectfully suggest that when voting, there are 3 things that need to be considered:

1) Doing
2) Politics
3) Tone and pitch and media

For example Bill Clinto was a master at 3 but rubbish at 1. Bertie was an embarrassment at 1 but superb at 2 and 3. Controversially, although we have limited evidence in government, Enda Kenny appears to be competent at 1 and 2 but beyond belief how bad he is at 3.

I had high hopes for Cowen across all 3 but he has been a disappointment. Lenihan excellent at 3 but truly awful at 1.

So, I respectully suggest that at ministerial level, the Irish electorate normally votes on the basis of 3, and partially 2 - but very seldom on 1

Irish people, in the majority, vote the way their family have always voted. Which is half the problem....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Broadly speaking however, I would respectfully suggest that when voting, there are 3 things that need to be considered:

1) Doing
2) Politics
3) Tone and pitch and media

For example Bill Clinto was a master at 3 but rubbish at 1.

---

Could you offer further explanation for the first consideration, and why you perceive Clinton to have been rubbish at it?

Certainly - the act of governing is difficult and is generally done in private and is therefore tricky to identify

Notable examples - e voting was a screw up but the idea was sound so putting all the bs to one side the actual act of making it happen was a mess

Other example was the north where many politicians deserve credit for doing something difficult

The recent abortionbthing highlights cowardice so the gov get a bad mark for lack of doing

These are obvious ones and in areas like the economic chaos if is harder to identify but in my eyes lenihan gets no gold stars - everything he said gas been wring and hd made some very strange appointments

Clinton I would suggest will diminish over time - his White house was a mess and while he had no wars and left an economic surplus the seeds if the bubble were sown on his watch

Just an opinion however and am happy to be corrected

Fix potholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Fix potholes.

---

Nonsense. Get me that passport, and get me it NOW!

As long as people who don't play the game don't get elected, it's the electorate's fault. Expecting e.g. Michael Healy-Rae to act in a fashion other than that which has gotten him elected again and again is stupid and naïve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

As long as people who don't play the game don't get elected, it's the electorate's fault. Expecting e.g. Michael Healy-Rae to act in a fashion other than that which has gotten him elected again and again is stupid and naïve.

---

Spot on. If the electorate keep voting for people who do f**k all but bluster and/or are only out to look after their constituents, how are those politicians and up and coming politicians going to act any other way?

What I wish our national politicians would do is govern on a national basis and with the national interest at heart. I wish our ministers possessed the requisite skills, knowledge and background to match the portfolio they are assigned or rather the appropriate people were assigned to the right portfolios instead of going to the most senior politicians in descending order of importance.

It's not an original thought but I wonder if we'd be better off with a party list system in Ireland akin to that in the Netherlands. Votes are totted nationally and apportioned to parties on a proportional basis rather than electing the local gombeen because he fixes the potholes. This can be open to unpalatable party hacks being put on the list and getting in but this can be mitigated by an open list system. You wouldn't get independents but you'd wipe out the Lowries and Healy-Raes of this world. I don't think this would fix things but it might make them marginally better.

A closed list, as you say, would be packed with hacks. Look at the Taoiseach's nominee's the last time - such quality people as Callely and Harris. Wouldn't an open list open it back up to the gombeen's to get a quota?

imo There's not a whole lot wrong with the system, our problem is our electorate. However, it could be tweaked with larger constituencies both in constituents and number of seats. The constitution allows up to 7 seaters iirc, and we should be aiming for close to the maximum population per rep. It would also be more proportional.

I reckon a 12-member dail with a split in the last year of the government, a 10-member senate and a pyramid system involving local councils.

It's hard to break that connection between the local and the national interest. I can understand how people in Wexford want to vote for the person that they think will bring investment to the area because it seemed to be desparetly overlooked when there was no ministerial representation. This obviously shouldn't be the case, but how do we produce a fair system where regions are treated equally regardless of the level of ministerial representation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passinginterest

It's hard to break that connection between the local and the national interest ... but how do we produce a fair system where regions are treated equally regardless of the level of ministerial representation?

---

I’m not sure we can, human nature being what it is. As Macy said in #10 the problem is with the electorate. I agree with increasing the size of the STV constituencies too.

A preferential list system, returning, say, 160 TDs from 8 constituencies might also work. Geographically large enough to decrease the effects of localism (though it won’t eradicate it), and the preferential nature means that the top listers (the croniest ones!) aren’t guaranteed seats. Or Alternative Vote: 160 single seat constituencies with transfer of votes until one candidate gets 50% plus one vote. Again, it won’t eradicate localism (by quartering existing constituencies it could lead to greater localism), but it would eliminate intra-party competition. An Additional Members System could use both, with an equal number of ministers from lists and single seat constituencies.

Strengthening local government would help, as would preventing TDs from encroaching on local government issues. I’d also like to see it obligatory for two non-party affiliated senators to be made ministers, coming from the Taoiseach’s 11 nominees. That would allow for recruitment of experts who are not in mortal fear of the electorate, and could treat all constituencies equally. I think Garret the Good was the last to use this, when he appointed Jim Dooge...?

But they’re as likely as a thaw by tomorrow. Like Poor Student in #9 I’d settle for politicians doing their job as national parliamentarians. Christ, we have low expectations of our politicians... and even then they manage to disappoint us.

As it stands the constitution allows us to have a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 seats in a constituency.
There are very simple solutions that we can employ. I don't like the idea of a full list system as I don't trust our politicians or the electorate.
I would rid us of the Seanad, enable the taoiseach to nominate x number of tds but the nominations would have to be approved by the Dáil a la the US presidents cabinet nominees which means justification can be made in the open.
And most importantly I would implement the French style ministry system whereby ministers quit parliament on nomination in order that they work in the national interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

As it stands the constitution allows us to have a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 seats in a constituency.

---

The electoral act limits them to five, there's actually no upper limit in the constitution.

Quote:

---

No law shall be enacted whereby the number of members to be returned for any constituency shall be less than three.

---

Correct. I wasn't in a research made last night. Had a feeling I was wrong on that one but the point was made.

But with respect lads, I accept that our system is flawed and needs to be changed. For example, 4 out of last Taoisigh have assumed office without winning an election. That makes my blood boil.

But my main question is do we really know what we want them to do ? We have not really had that debate. At its core, they have a defensive role on some things e.g. don;t break the economy, ensure stuff works, ensure electricity and gas supplies are properly regulated etc. There are some areas where they haver an active role - protecting elderly and stuff like environmental issues - but unfortunately noone is going to win an eelction by saying they prevented a meltdown in the economy.

So this is a dilemma - politicians should have a defensive, passive, supervisory role - which is utterly unexciting

They don't run the economy - businesses do. So the pols role is to set the rules of the road, appoint people to manage those rules and then to ensure those rules are implemented. This government has failed abjectly on this score - but fundamentally they don't run the economy

They can tweak it in terms of tax and interest rates but we need them to tap the brakes sometimes and to tap the accelerator other times and the rest of the time to stay out of the way - but at all times to ensure the rules of the road are appropriately set and appropriately implemented.

Very unsexy and not something that can win an election - because the electorate only cares about stuff being broken when it is broken. Not beforehand.

If FF had raised tax and cut spending 4 years ago they would have been flayed alive. They still should have done it - and explained it to us properly - but they chickened out but it would have been a very hard sell to the electorate "we are taking money off you to prevent meltdown" - a difficult sell but that is precisely what we need them to do.

One point about politicians acting in the interest of their constituents - that doesn't make all independents gob****es like Jackie Healy-Rae or corrupt (allegedly :rolleyes:) like Lowry. Tony Gregory was one of the politicians I most admired. He acted in the interests of his constituency because it had to be done. Otherwise, their issues (including poverty, drugs, crime) would have been ignored by the machine of the main parties even though these problems would have a national effect down the road.

Personally, I want to see politicians who will actually make themselves heard. The worst kind are the silent spongers. A perfect example is Brendan Kenneally. "Who?" I hear you ask. That's because he's the Trappist Monk of Irish politics. FF backbencher son and grandson of FF TDs. Waterford TD from 92 to 2002, rejected by the electorate, cushioned into the Senate by Bertie, back into the Dail in 07 yet I don't think I've ever heard him speak. One of the biggest expense-grabbers with NOTHING to show for it. He doesn't ever even make the local papers let alone make a contribution to any national debate. Will happily clock in to vote against by-elections or carers' allowances. He finally emerged from his slumber to make the front of today's local paper with "€1.6m library for Waterford - Brendan Kenneally TD". This along with a promise of funding for two school buildings which were already promised years ago, but not delivered. He's slithered in with a West Waterford vote and Martin Cullen's transfers, but with Cullen gone, FF will really struggle to keep Kenneally in champagne, oysters and babies' guts or whatever their backbenchers enjoy.....I'm not a fan.

There are politicians out there who I don't always agree with, but who I admire because they are passionate, genuinely want to help and believe in their policies. Even if their views conflict with each other completely, I think Joe Higgins, David Norris, Shane Ross, Roisin Shortall, Caoimghin O'Caolain, Alan Shatter, Joan Burton, Maureen O'Sullivan, Fergus O'Dowd, Liz McManus off the top of my head actually have something positive to contribute to the running of the country. The likes of these passionate, informed and articulate people are worth a thousand of the likes of Kenneally, PJ Sheehan or Mattie McGrath.

He'd appear to be positively verbose compared to these chatty men. Words spoken in the Dail in 2010:

1. Bertie Ahern (0)
2. Jackie Healy-Rae (1)
3. Michael Woods (1)
4. Christy O’Sullivan (2)
5. Eamon Scanlon (3)
6. Dr Rory O’Hanlon (3)
7. Tom Kitt (3)
8. Noel Grealish (3)
9. Michael Fitzpatrick (3)
10. Michael Lowry (3)

Still don't get why Lowry even has the opportunity to speak 3 words in there. He's a crook. I hope Sam Smyth takes him to the cleaners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluemovie

... corrupt (allegedly :rolleyes:) like Lowry...

---

Careful - the word allegedly doesn't protect you from libel law. Granted, I've love to see him try it - if there's any justice, he'd wind up with a judge declaring that he has no public reputation left to libel like Beverly Cooper-Flynn. Safer ground: He's a tax-evader, per the McCracken Tribunal and his enormous settlement with the Revenue (€200k personal, €1.2M business).

You know how strict I am on defamation here, but this is one I'll defend. When Ben Dunne built that extension, he became corrupt, and I'll wager that's what Smyth'll beat him on. It just needs to be stated in a court of law and he's toast. Course the morons in Tipp'll probably still vote for him.