Dail voting to limit Speaking Time

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,432
Twitter
No
The small parties have the option as the bigger parties do to gain traction on a subject by speaking to the media, either on the record or off the record and the vast majority of exchanges in the Dail are procedural more than anything.

I'd be concerned if the only oversight we had was on debate within the Oireachtas but it is easy to ramp up scrutiny on an area by using the media and off-the-record briefings and what have you.

I'd prefer to see a leaning toward hearing what the smaller party groupings have to say. That is what is at the core of demos after all, and the major parties have the advantage of leadership in opposition or being in government which is something that always has to be rebalanced in favour of parties who never enjoy these advantages I think.
 


SuirView

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
14,790
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.
HaHa,
Are USF not happy with this?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,432
Twitter
No
Well it isn't about the tyranny of the majority but how the minority are protected from such tyranny.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
52,473
Well it isn't about the tyranny of the majority but how the minority are protected from such tyranny.
What tyranny? Surely parties should get speaking time proportionate with the number of seats they have?
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
35,703
Anything that lessens my exposure to the rantings of Mr Sh1t is a great idea. :LOL:
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,432
Twitter
No
What tyranny? Surely parties should get speaking time proportionate with the number of seats they have?
That comes from the 'winner takes all' mentality of 51%. As I've said before I don't think the principles of democracy are well understood at all at times. 51% of a vote under the principles of demos does not mean you have carte blanche to ram through any laws you like which impact severely on a minority.

The bog-brained GAA view of politics is that if you have a majority you can do what you like. Those who actually know anything about the principles of democracy know that it is the underlying principle that tyranny should be avoided, and especially that of a majority.
 

Uganda

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
11,312
That comes from the 'winner takes all' mentality of 51%. As I've said before I don't think the principles of democracy are well understood at all at times. 51% of a vote under the principles of demos does not mean you have carte blanche to ram through any laws you like which impact severely on a minority.

The bog-brained GAA view of politics is that if you have a majority you can do what you like. Those who actually know anything about the principles of democracy know that it is the underlying principle that tyranny should be avoided, and especially that of a majority.
But in this case its losers taking 75%
 

StormWarning

Active member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
157
That comes from the 'winner takes all' mentality of 51%. As I've said before I don't think the principles of democracy are well understood at all at times. 51% of a vote under the principles of demos does not mean you have carte blanche to ram through any laws you like which impact severely on a minority.

The bog-brained GAA view of politics is that if you have a majority you can do what you like. Those who actually know anything about the principles of democracy know that it is the underlying principle that tyranny should be avoided, and especially that of a majority.
"What the motion stated: If passed, it will reduce the majority required to change a rule at Congress from two-thirds (66.6%) to a simple majority (more than 50%).

What happened: It was proposed by Tipperary and Leitrim, but was withdrawn before going to the floor, presumably as a response to the previous motion. Which is odd, we would have presumed that the passing of the preceding motion gave this slightly more chance of getting through."

Whats with all the ridiculing of Irish traditions and games?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,432
Twitter
No
No ridiculing of Irish games, but the notion that democracy is some kind of sport where you get to do what you like as long as you have a majority. I know this principle is not well understood but democracy has as a cornerstone the protection of the interests of the minority from the majority as much as it is about elections.

The reason we have a constitution is to delineate the rights and responsibilities in the political contract between state and citizen, and in demos one of those responsibilities is not to wield a majority as a stick to beat a minority with.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
52,509
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.
But it wasn't Intel. Who got it on the cheap is a big part of the cause of disquiet. And you know why.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
52,509
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
Governing parties get to decide how legislation is drafted. Therefore, government TDs get to lobby at parliamentary party meetings. Opposition TDs do not.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,432
Twitter
No
If we wanted to save parliamentary time we could consider reforms which would free up plenty of time. Knocking on the head this absurd whack-a-molery of backbench TDs popping up to masturbate verbally over what their Minister has just announced or alleged is a slapstick routine we could usefully lose.

Bum-lickery is never pleasant to view and I don't think beyond a form of institutionalised filibustering it serves any purpose at all.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
5,221
My heart bleeds for the far-left and the SD's, Labour and some independents. Oh no. :roll:
The philoopher Nietzsche said you can say more in one sentence than in an entire book and there is a Chinese saying that a picture is worth a thousands words. The hard left minorities in opposition need to humbly learn brevity instead of dogmatic bluster.
 

james toney

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
18,898
The philoopher Nietzsche said you can say more in one sentence than in an entire book and there is a Chinese saying that a picture is worth a thousands words. The hard left minorities in opposition need to humbly learn brevity instead of dogmatic bluster.
A man's greed is like a snake that wants to swallow an elephant.
Chinese proverb.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom