Dail voting to limit Speaking Time

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
59,681
The Dail has been voting on controversial changes to speaking time that smaller parties and some Independents have labelled a power grab by FF, FG and SF. The reforms would limit each TDs speaking time to 20 minutes. But because the larger parties have more TDs, it benefits them more.

For SF, it limits the airtime of their competition on the Left.

At the time of typing, the CC has just suspended the House following an exchange with Richard Boyd Barrett TD of Sol-PBP who was trying to make a point of order.

Thoughts?


 


DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
13,791
The Dail has been voting on controversial changes to speaking time that smaller parties and some Independents have labelled a power grab by FF, FG and SF. The reforms would limit each TDs speaking time to 20 minutes. But because the larger parties have more TDs, it benefits them more.

For SF, it limits the airtime of their competition on the Left.

At the time of typing, the CC has just suspended the House following an exchange with Richard Boyd Barrett TD of Sol-PBP who was trying to make a point of order.

Thoughts?


My heart bleeds for the far-left and the SD's, Labour and some independents. Oh no. :roll:
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
59,681
The Regional Group of Independents seems to have largely backed the changes, but some other Independents sounded opposed. It was enough to get about 86 voted for and 65 against in an earlier vote tonight.
 

SuirView

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
14,790
HaHa,
USF looking for more airtime!
Getting better!
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
59,681
Government has just put forward a motion for the Dail to adjourn until Tuesday 15th September. Opposition opposed including SF, Labour and Mattie McGrath. Voting now.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
52,473
The Dail has been voting on controversial changes to speaking time that smaller parties and some Independents have labelled a power grab by FF, FG and SF. The reforms would limit each TDs speaking time to 20 minutes. But because the larger parties have more TDs, it benefits them more.

For SF, it limits the airtime of their competition on the Left.

At the time of typing, the CC has just suspended the House following an exchange with Richard Boyd Barrett TD of Sol-PBP who was trying to make a point of order.

Thoughts?


Surely speaking time should be broadly in proportion to the number of seats a party or grouping has?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
52,473
Government has just put forward a motion for the Dail to adjourn until Tuesday 15th September. Opposition opposed including SF, Labour and Mattie McGrath. Voting now.
They were only opposed because they were certain it'd pass anyway.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
59,681
Surely speaking time should be broadly in proportion to the number of seats a party or grouping has?
I dont know about that. Sometimes the smaller parties raise hot topics that the larger parties would rather ignore, such as Siteserv. How long has the inquiry gone on for now? Time for report.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
52,473
I dont know about that. Sometimes the smaller parties raise hot topics that the larger parties would rather ignore, such as Siteserv. How long has the inquiry gone on for now? Time for report.
But nobody's saying the smaller parties shouldn't have speaking time, so that's a moot point. As for the SiteServ report, it'd have been published long ago if the politician who was loudest in demanding said inquiry would actually agree to come before said inquiry. Catherine Murphy makes me laugh anyway - if it was, say, Intel, that had bought SiteServ for €45 million or whatever it was after the debts had been written off, there wouldn't be a sound out of her.
 

SuirView

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
14,790
But nobody's saying the smaller parties shouldn't have speaking time, so that's a moot point. As for the SiteServ report, it'd have been published long ago if the politician who was loudest in demanding said inquiry would actually agree to come before said inquiry. Catherine Murphy makes me laugh anyway - if it was, say, Intel, that had bought SiteServ for €45 million or whatever it was after the debts had been written off, there wouldn't be a sound out of her.
HaHa,
I thought you weren't one for Internet conspiracy theories!
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
27,089
NEWS: Sinn Fein is seeking a special sitting of the Dail next week to discuss what it says are "serious questions" around the legality of checks by welfare officials at airports. @loreillysf has written to the Ceann Comhairle saying Qs have to be answered @rtenews
 

Round tower

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,122
In one of the votes he was one of the NO tellers which includes signing the declaration, he refused to sign the declaration so due to the rules the vote was forfeited.
The problem is that in the last Dail the smaller parties had so much speaking time and Gov. backbenches was complaining that they were not being giving sufficent speaking rights. That smaller parties with a lot less TD's had more speaking rights. The new system is trying to more balanced approach to it, it would seem that a party with 5 or 6 TD's like Lab., PBP has more speaking rights than the parties with over 30 like FF and FG
 

Uganda

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
11,312
The Dail has been voting on controversial changes to speaking time that smaller parties and some Independents have labelled a power grab by FF, FG and SF. The reforms would limit each TDs speaking time to 20 minutes. But because the larger parties have more TDs, it benefits them more.

For SF, it limits the airtime of their competition on the Left.

At the time of typing, the CC has just suspended the House following an exchange with Richard Boyd Barrett TD of Sol-PBP who was trying to make a point of order.

Thoughts?


i presume our group think media will swallow the line that this is an attempt to stifle opposition.

after all, giving 74% of the speaking time to 48% of TDS certainly discriminated against the majority.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
31,577
The legislation seems fair. SF should be speaking immediately after the govt. They're the main opposition. The smaller parties should have a voice commensurate with their vote.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
31,577
Still feels unbalanced to me. But it's fairer.

The govt has 45% of the seats. SF has 23%. The govt gets 26% of the speaking time, SF gets 16%. So really the smaller parties should shut up and get on with things.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom