Fianna Fail Wants To Block All Other Opposition Parties From Speaking In The Dail

CptSternn

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
3,920
Micheál Martin seeks cut to small parties

Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has called for key speaking rights for smaller parties to be cut, despite the move being central to Dáil reforms sought by his party after the general election.

...

“I do not think it is fair that when the Dáil is doing statements that I, as leader of the main opposition party, get the same time allotted as Sinn Féin, Labour, Social Democrats, Green Party, AAA-PBP, as well as other groupings.
Lets face it, Fianna Fail have supported everything Fine Gael has done. They are only pretending to be in opposition. This move will effectively eliminate any and all discussion in the Dail. Fine Gael can run a minority government while Fianna Fail claim to be in opposition and support them while they rubber stamp all legislation through without any dissent.

Seems extremely undemocratic.
 


ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,090
They are not the opposition, really. This is an attempt to silence the Dáil.
 

Franzoni

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
16,327
Fianna Fail TD's argued in the last election there was no such thing as a main opposition party when it looked like they would go into coalition and SF would be the biggest on the opposition benches...

Hoisted by their own petard..........lovely jubbly......
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,666
FF was a small party a few months ago

This is unacceptable and an attempt to protect the rich and powerful from scrutiny.
 

Zapped(CAPITALISMROTS)

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
6,493
Twitter
daxxdrake
I said yesterday on another thread that Martin was the lowest form of pond-life, might have to re-visit that opinion ( though in fairness, I regretted being so harsh on pond life!:mad::mad:
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,400
Seems reasonable enough that party leaders be apportioned speaking time in proportion to the size of their parties. Why should the leader of a micro-party (say, Labour on 7 seats) have the same speaking time as the leader of a large party (say, Fianna Fáil on 44 seats)?
 

CptSternn

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
3,920
Seems reasonable enough that party leaders be apportioned speaking time in proportion to the size of their parties. Why should the leader of a micro-party (say, Labour on 7 seats) have the same speaking time as the leader of a large party (say, Fianna Fáil on 44 seats)?
If for no other reason because of the exact situation we have right now. Fianna Fail claim to be in 'opposition', but they are not. They have supported Fine Gael on every issue to date. They allowed Fine Gael to run the government as a 'minority'. Fianna Fail are not any form of opposition because to date they haven't opposed anything. Now they want to remove as much debate as they can from the Dail so they can limit any actual debate from any actual opposition. If Fianna Fail get their way it will be just themselves and Fine Gael with speaking rights and they can block any other parties from even challenging them.

That is not much of a democracy. When you stifle all debate and only have two parties in power which both support the very same things you have lost what it means to be free.
 

ainm_eile

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
611
So we are going to see another "grand coalition"? Why will this one be any different to the last? SF are probably secretly creaming themselves, there has been enough incompetence already with the grant for first-time buyers.

The fair solution BTW is to allocate the speaking time based on the square root of the number of TDs in each delegation, i.e. the Penrose Method.
 

Dorcha

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
3,922
Seems reasonable enough that party leaders be apportioned speaking time in proportion to the size of their parties. Why should the leader of a micro-party (say, Labour on 7 seats) have the same speaking time as the leader of a large party (say, Fianna Fáil on 44 seats)?
The idea that ALL the people should be heard, not just the majority? If what was said in the Dail was always to the point, there would be plenty of speaking time. But about eighty percent of it is hot air and pure waffle.
 

EUrJokingMeRight

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
11,664
Seems reasonable enough that party leaders be apportioned speaking time in proportion to the size of their parties. Why should the leader of a micro-party (say, Labour on 7 seats) have the same speaking time as the leader of a large party (say, Fianna Fáil on 44 seats)?
F88K me Cato, I thought you had some brains upstairs.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
I said yesterday on another thread that Martin was the lowest form of pond-life, might have to re-visit that opinion ( though in fairness, I regretted being so harsh on pond life!:mad::mad:
You'll have Tonic on your case, I referred to Martin as a weasel and did not get a moments peace from the fellow for a day or two.
 
Last edited:

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
Seems reasonable enough that party leaders be apportioned speaking time in proportion to the size of their parties. Why should the leader of a micro-party (say, Labour on 7 seats) have the same speaking time as the leader of a large party (say, Fianna Fáil on 44 seats)?
Not at all, for it means that smaller parties are not given the chance to grow by demonstrating their ideas and abilities where it matters most.
 

CptSternn

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
3,920
Maybe we should try it here. :)

A hypothetical example would be to make everyone have to verify what party the support and then we could allot a certain number of responses in the threads to the party in government and then the largest opposition, then a few dozen other people representing the other parties could work together to share one post on the topic before it is closed.

Sure what would be wrong with that? Limiting speaking rights to only the most powerful and keeping debate down to a minimum.

Or what if things took a turn at the next election and FF/FG end up with only a handful of seats and they were the ones to had to join together just to be able to reply to a single post. I wonder how fast those who support this idea would be totally against it.

I bet if Fianna Fail take a hit in the next GE they will pretend like they never even suggested this. You know, like they are pretending like they didn't call for Dail reform during the last election looking to increase speaking rights for smaller parties.
 

EUrJokingMeRight

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
11,664
What if every German was a supporter of the Nazi party?

100% speaking rights, oh Yeah!!!!!!!

 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Seems reasonable enough that party leaders be apportioned speaking time in proportion to the size of their parties. Why should the leader of a micro-party (say, Labour on 7 seats) have the same speaking time as the leader of a large party (say, Fianna Fáil on 44 seats)?
When you put it like that ...
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
You'll have Tonic on your case, I referred to Martin as a weasel and did get a moments peace from the fellow for a day or two.
Did you really?
Sounds terribly interesting, a great pity I didn't see that at first hand.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top