Today I would like to deal with the very last point regarding Technocracy and then leave the issue until someone specifically requests that any point needs better explanation or a better discussion. This last point is dedicated to the raised concerns and critique:
Would the proposed Technocracy lead to the end of the PR system?
No. The system of parties trying to get majorities in the Dáil is ,I think, similar what is really happening right now. I would hope that the system I am proposing would ensure that the TDs would do more work in Dáil to work for their electorate, as right now we hear the excuse of 'Unfortunately it wasn't the government's policy' or 'I was busy trying to get the government out of the office'.
I suppose this would lead to a model of the EP with regards to independents being voted in and then forming a political group together in the Dáil, however don't take this suggestion seriously as it is simply my own personal opinion or forecast.
Who exactly defines "expert"?
That is a very good question and the answer is very simple- the people we vote in. The TDs that are directly elected by the electorate must nominate a Taoiseach and give his/her cabinet a mandate. This means that the definition of an 'expert' would be decided pretty much by the Dáil majority. However, to ensure this isn't mishandled, I would envisage the definition of an 'expert' I've already included in the post about the Taoiseach, would be put into the legislation.
Will the experts be truly apolitical?
Its a fair point to say that they will be not be truly political, true. I think the point of this is to have people who know what they're doing as the cabinet, as opposed to people who, during one term are minister for foreign affairs, then in the next term they switch to finance and in the next to say agriculture and that's all because they really don't know much about these fields. The reason why they would be apolitical is when they introduce a bill that might not necessary be supported by the coalition that elected them in. this would mean the ministers would have to try and persuade the Dáil to support his/her views, giver arguments, facts, and this would open up a debate. also the government would only be bound to the coalition in the Dáil by its program, so it could introduce a bill that will be, in its opinion, beneficial to Ireland, but not supported by the coalition that got them in power but still not in conflict with its program. yet again this would offer greater room for debate and could make the governance of the country not one-sided, as would be the case if politicians would be in the cabinet, I think.
That concludes the series of post about Technocracy. I will now hide away and read through tons of material to support my point and come back after the weekend to start a series of posts about another of Breakthrough's policies.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Technocracy- Extra Points
As I have promised all those days ago, to conclude the series of posts about technocracy, I would like to add a few extra points.
Reducing TD numbers:
There's a lot of talk nowadays about reducing the number of TDs in Ireland. This is usually the main issue when it comes down to talking about a reform of the political system in Ireland. That is why the reform of technocracy has to, I believe, include this topic too. To be honest, I personally am fully for reducing the number of TDs in Ireland. We are a state of the population of somewhere around 4 million and have 166 TDs, while the European Parliament has 736 MEPs and governs over something of 500 million citizens. Furthermore a lot of the decision making and legislation has been passed onto to the EU and thus there is no need for the number of the TDs to stand the way it is. However, as for technocracy itself, it doesn't need a reduction of TD numbers to function. Some might even suggest that the number of the TDs should increase under technocracy to help to control the cabinet of experts. Therefore, Breakthrough would be open to discussion on this topic, and would consider the reduction of TD numbers as a minor issue.
Abolition of the Seanad:
Yet again this is a point that comes up frequently while talking about a political reform in Ireland, however it doesn't affect technocracy to a large degree. However, Breakthrough would like to see the institution of Seanad to be fully reformed with greater powers and more transparency or abolished completely because the current model is simply only taking away taxpayers money. If you would like to know how this reform would look, please write to me and I will make it my priority to write this up. However, if none such request will be made I will concentrate on other important issues for the movement and then come back to the Seanad later, as it doesn't affect the reform of technocracy directly.
Correction of my statements regarding the President's role:
After I have written the post about the President's role under technocracy I detected certain about of scepticism of having a politically involved President. I would like to express myself more clearly here, when I say that yes the President would have to take a more active role in the political life of the country but must stay above the politics. This might sound like a contradiction, however what I mean by it is that the President must stay above the party politics while keeping in my the citizen's of the country he/she is fully responsible for and protect their best interest. Thus the increase of powers as advocated in the previous post.
There's a lot of talk nowadays about reducing the number of TDs in Ireland. This is usually the main issue when it comes down to talking about a reform of the political system in Ireland. That is why the reform of technocracy has to, I believe, include this topic too. To be honest, I personally am fully for reducing the number of TDs in Ireland. We are a state of the population of somewhere around 4 million and have 166 TDs, while the European Parliament has 736 MEPs and governs over something of 500 million citizens. Furthermore a lot of the decision making and legislation has been passed onto to the EU and thus there is no need for the number of the TDs to stand the way it is. However, as for technocracy itself, it doesn't need a reduction of TD numbers to function. Some might even suggest that the number of the TDs should increase under technocracy to help to control the cabinet of experts. Therefore, Breakthrough would be open to discussion on this topic, and would consider the reduction of TD numbers as a minor issue.
Abolition of the Seanad:
Yet again this is a point that comes up frequently while talking about a political reform in Ireland, however it doesn't affect technocracy to a large degree. However, Breakthrough would like to see the institution of Seanad to be fully reformed with greater powers and more transparency or abolished completely because the current model is simply only taking away taxpayers money. If you would like to know how this reform would look, please write to me and I will make it my priority to write this up. However, if none such request will be made I will concentrate on other important issues for the movement and then come back to the Seanad later, as it doesn't affect the reform of technocracy directly.
Correction of my statements regarding the President's role:
After I have written the post about the President's role under technocracy I detected certain about of scepticism of having a politically involved President. I would like to express myself more clearly here, when I say that yes the President would have to take a more active role in the political life of the country but must stay above the politics. This might sound like a contradiction, however what I mean by it is that the President must stay above the party politics while keeping in my the citizen's of the country he/she is fully responsible for and protect their best interest. Thus the increase of powers as advocated in the previous post.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sorry everyone!
Hey everyone!
Sorry for not writing anything for more than a week. It can be attributed to many reasons, starting from me being sick, then being not able to access the internet to being a bit lazy for a day or two. However, before I am writing this, I did go and set up a Facebook group for Breakthrough and if anyone wants to join here's the link:
http://www.facebook.com/notifications.php#/group.php?gid=129430631662
we can all discuss all the ideas there. Tomorrow I promise I will add the extra points about technocracy and the criticism of it, and after that it is time to move on to other issues such as Negative Income Tax, School System Reform and EUnifying Europe.
Once again sorry for not posting for so long.
Sorry for not writing anything for more than a week. It can be attributed to many reasons, starting from me being sick, then being not able to access the internet to being a bit lazy for a day or two. However, before I am writing this, I did go and set up a Facebook group for Breakthrough and if anyone wants to join here's the link:
http://www.facebook.com/notifications.php#/group.php?gid=129430631662
we can all discuss all the ideas there. Tomorrow I promise I will add the extra points about technocracy and the criticism of it, and after that it is time to move on to other issues such as Negative Income Tax, School System Reform and EUnifying Europe.
Once again sorry for not posting for so long.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Technocracy and the President
The last piece of the jigsaw regarding the cabinet of experts and its implementation in the current Irish system is the role of the President. I have hinted upon a few changes to this role in the previous posts and here I shall fully explain them.
Firstly one must realized that with an apolitical Taoiseach the president's role must expand. The President would be no longer apolitical, but rather seen as the last line of defense for the citizens, should the cabinet of experts fail on an issue. Thus the President must take a much more proactive role in the politics, and be allowed to fully criticize the government, should he/she feel that the cabinet is abusing its powers, for example. This proactive role means that the President is no longer apolitical, but an active member of the political scene and requires indeed for the constitution to be changed, as right now the President must ask for the approval of the government to make a statement to the public about the political situation in the country.
Secondly the requirement of the Council of State to meet when the President is considering vetoing a law should be abolished. The President must be a person that must know the laws of the country and calling for the Council of State to present its opinions on a proposed bill does not already alter the President's opinion. Furthermore, the President should also act as the last defence for the citizens, so even if a proposed bill should be in accordance with the constitution but the President sees it is against the interest of citizens he/she should act accordingly. This is a second mechanism of control for the apolitical government, should they abuse their powers.
(this second point, however, is purely my own wish and the technocratic government can be work without it)
When the President does reject a bill, it comes back to the Dáil, where it is debated again. To prohibit the bill to be simply passed again there is a requirement that the bill must win 2/3 majority. This is considerably higher than the usual 50% and makes sure that some amendments and changes were made to the bill. This also allows for control of the President, even. With the 2/3 majority, it is clear that the Dáil supports the proposed bill and, assuming the TDs represent the interest of the people, the bill is not against the citizens either. This bill, approved of by the 2/3 majority, would have to be signed by the President then, as the President's veto has been 'overvoted'.
Of course the President has a vital role when appointing the Taoiseach, as proposed by the Dáil majority. If there are doubts about the nominee, it is the duty of the President to refuse appointing the nominee for the office of the Taoiseach, even if approved of by the Dáil.
That concludes the series of posts regarding the Technocracy and the difference it makes to the institutions that already exist. I the next few days I will bring forward a few extra points regarding Technocracy that simply didn't fit into any other post and after that I shall try to answer any criticism of Technocracy.
Firstly one must realized that with an apolitical Taoiseach the president's role must expand. The President would be no longer apolitical, but rather seen as the last line of defense for the citizens, should the cabinet of experts fail on an issue. Thus the President must take a much more proactive role in the politics, and be allowed to fully criticize the government, should he/she feel that the cabinet is abusing its powers, for example. This proactive role means that the President is no longer apolitical, but an active member of the political scene and requires indeed for the constitution to be changed, as right now the President must ask for the approval of the government to make a statement to the public about the political situation in the country.
Secondly the requirement of the Council of State to meet when the President is considering vetoing a law should be abolished. The President must be a person that must know the laws of the country and calling for the Council of State to present its opinions on a proposed bill does not already alter the President's opinion. Furthermore, the President should also act as the last defence for the citizens, so even if a proposed bill should be in accordance with the constitution but the President sees it is against the interest of citizens he/she should act accordingly. This is a second mechanism of control for the apolitical government, should they abuse their powers.
(this second point, however, is purely my own wish and the technocratic government can be work without it)
When the President does reject a bill, it comes back to the Dáil, where it is debated again. To prohibit the bill to be simply passed again there is a requirement that the bill must win 2/3 majority. This is considerably higher than the usual 50% and makes sure that some amendments and changes were made to the bill. This also allows for control of the President, even. With the 2/3 majority, it is clear that the Dáil supports the proposed bill and, assuming the TDs represent the interest of the people, the bill is not against the citizens either. This bill, approved of by the 2/3 majority, would have to be signed by the President then, as the President's veto has been 'overvoted'.
Of course the President has a vital role when appointing the Taoiseach, as proposed by the Dáil majority. If there are doubts about the nominee, it is the duty of the President to refuse appointing the nominee for the office of the Taoiseach, even if approved of by the Dáil.
That concludes the series of posts regarding the Technocracy and the difference it makes to the institutions that already exist. I the next few days I will bring forward a few extra points regarding Technocracy that simply didn't fit into any other post and after that I shall try to answer any criticism of Technocracy.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Technocracy and the TDs
From the very start of this series of post on technocracy I made sure I did not talk much about the TDs and their powers. This is because this issue needs to be addressed in a post on its own, where I will talk about the powers of the TDs and their role in technocracy, which is indirectly increased under this system.
First off lets look at the start of each TD's political life- the elections. Under the technocracy system proposed, the PR system would still be retained. The PR system has many advantages, mainly that it allows for local parties to enter the Dáil as well as that no votes are 'worthless' as each attributes to a candidate. Another advantage is that the system allows for a TD to be tied to his constituents and work for the area. Many times, however, the TD does not exactly always work for his constitutions. Here we find a problem, that the system of technocracy, indirectly, tries to resolve.
Under the model of technocracy the TDs are not an a part of the government. In fact there are no ruling parties, because the Dáil majority only applies to the appointment of the cabinet and its program. Besides that the TDs are pretty much free to vote and do as they will. This opens doors for the TDs to open topics and issues in the Dáil that interest their constituents. There can be no longer any excuse for not being proactive in the Dáil such as the usual 'It wasn't a government agenda' or 'we dedicated all out time correcting the government'.
This proactive role of the TDs could only be achieved if their powers remain the same, and that's exactly what technocracy guarantees. The TDs can vote on any issue put forward by fellow TDs or government and are seen as a balancing body to the cabinet of experts. Furthermore their legislative powers are also being kept, allows them to draft up legislation and defend it in front of the Dáil. These powers being kept ensure that the TDs take an active role in the Dáil as the usual excuses can no longer work under technocracy.
Having explained the roles of the Taoiseach, the cabinet and TDs there is only one more function that we must look at and that is the role of the President. I will be addressing this issue in tomorrow's post and after that I will try to answer some criticism on technocracy to prove there is no need to fret. Please look forward to the conclusion of these series on technocracy.
First off lets look at the start of each TD's political life- the elections. Under the technocracy system proposed, the PR system would still be retained. The PR system has many advantages, mainly that it allows for local parties to enter the Dáil as well as that no votes are 'worthless' as each attributes to a candidate. Another advantage is that the system allows for a TD to be tied to his constituents and work for the area. Many times, however, the TD does not exactly always work for his constitutions. Here we find a problem, that the system of technocracy, indirectly, tries to resolve.
Under the model of technocracy the TDs are not an a part of the government. In fact there are no ruling parties, because the Dáil majority only applies to the appointment of the cabinet and its program. Besides that the TDs are pretty much free to vote and do as they will. This opens doors for the TDs to open topics and issues in the Dáil that interest their constituents. There can be no longer any excuse for not being proactive in the Dáil such as the usual 'It wasn't a government agenda' or 'we dedicated all out time correcting the government'.
This proactive role of the TDs could only be achieved if their powers remain the same, and that's exactly what technocracy guarantees. The TDs can vote on any issue put forward by fellow TDs or government and are seen as a balancing body to the cabinet of experts. Furthermore their legislative powers are also being kept, allows them to draft up legislation and defend it in front of the Dáil. These powers being kept ensure that the TDs take an active role in the Dáil as the usual excuses can no longer work under technocracy.
Having explained the roles of the Taoiseach, the cabinet and TDs there is only one more function that we must look at and that is the role of the President. I will be addressing this issue in tomorrow's post and after that I will try to answer some criticism on technocracy to prove there is no need to fret. Please look forward to the conclusion of these series on technocracy.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Technocracy and the Cabinet Powers
Having discussed the technical process behind electing the cabinet of experts, we must now move on to the powers of this cabinet of experts.
The role of the cabinet under the model of technocracy is both legislative and executive. This strongly resembles the role the current system attributes to the government. The cabinet represents the country at the EU conferences, makes out legislation, drafts out the budget etc. However the cabinet must adhere to the Government program that was passed in the Dáil and work towards fulfilling each point of the program. This means that any legislation or steps taken by the government must correspond with its stance as stated in the Government program.
Once the government, however, touches upon an agenda that is not included in the Government program, it has free hands. The government's stance will be simply be decided by the government itself on the issues not included in the Government program. This can lead to bills drafted that the government agrees on but are not supported by the Dáil majority. Thus it is up to the minister to defend the legislation introduced in the Dáil and address the issues raised by the TDs. The convincing process is designed to make the minister's role more active in the Dáil.
Thus as we can see the powers of the cabinet remain the same, the only difference is that the government is strongly tied to the Government program and the ministers are required to take a more active part in the Dáil debate.
The powers of the TDs are also an essential part of technocracy. The Dáil serves as a balancing body to the apolitical cabinet. The role and powers of the TDs will be explained in the next post, which will bring us close to the end of this simple process of explaining the model of technocracy. Please look forward to it.
The role of the cabinet under the model of technocracy is both legislative and executive. This strongly resembles the role the current system attributes to the government. The cabinet represents the country at the EU conferences, makes out legislation, drafts out the budget etc. However the cabinet must adhere to the Government program that was passed in the Dáil and work towards fulfilling each point of the program. This means that any legislation or steps taken by the government must correspond with its stance as stated in the Government program.
Once the government, however, touches upon an agenda that is not included in the Government program, it has free hands. The government's stance will be simply be decided by the government itself on the issues not included in the Government program. This can lead to bills drafted that the government agrees on but are not supported by the Dáil majority. Thus it is up to the minister to defend the legislation introduced in the Dáil and address the issues raised by the TDs. The convincing process is designed to make the minister's role more active in the Dáil.
Thus as we can see the powers of the cabinet remain the same, the only difference is that the government is strongly tied to the Government program and the ministers are required to take a more active part in the Dáil debate.
The powers of the TDs are also an essential part of technocracy. The Dáil serves as a balancing body to the apolitical cabinet. The role and powers of the TDs will be explained in the next post, which will bring us close to the end of this simple process of explaining the model of technocracy. Please look forward to it.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Technocracy and the Cabinet Election
After the Taoiseach has been selected by both the Dáil and the President, his job concentrates at creating his own cabinet. This cabinet, just like the Taoiseach, is apolitical and composed from experts in their field. Since the definition of 'expert' has already been established allow me to proceed straight into the process of selection.
The Taoiseach's job is to shortlist candidates for each job. There are several way he/she can go about this, really, based on the agreement with the Dáil majority. We have to remember still that the Taoiseach still needs to get his cabinet approved of by the Dáil so the selection process should, ideally, be consulted with the Dáil majority.
The shortlisted candidates that are selected by the Taoiseach are then consulted with the Dáil majority and the leaders of this majority agree with the Taoiseach which of these shortlisted candidates would be most acceptable by the Dáil majority. The Taoiseach can ignore these consultations with the leaders of the Dáil majority, of course, these talks are not legally binding. However, should he completely ignore any recommendations he faces the threat that the cabinet of experts will not be passed by the Dáil.
Having selected the ministers, the job of the cabinet is now to create the Government program. The government program would, one must imagine, reflect the main agendas of the parties forming the Dáil majority. Once again the leaders of the Dáil majority would give suggestions to the cabinet and it is up to the cabinet to consider putting them into the Government program or leaving them out. Yet again, these suggestions are not legally binding, the government has a lot of freedom in this process. However, should the recommendations be largely ignored the government faces a backlash when the program will be voted on in the Dáil.
With the full program drafted and all cabinet positions filled, the cabinet seeks its mandate from the Dáil. The Dáil votes, while having two things in mind:
1. Are the candidates truly experts? Are they any suggestions that they would not be up to the job of a minister? Will they pursue along the lines of the party's agenda?
2. Is the Government program reasonable? Does it reflect the party's agenda? Are there points in the program with which the party strongly disagrees?
When the above questions are favorably answered, the Dáil passes the confidence vote to the cabinet and its program giving them their mandate. The cabinet assumes its role and works along the lines of the Government program . However, the work of the cabinet proper is a topic for tomorrow's post. Look forward to it
The Taoiseach's job is to shortlist candidates for each job. There are several way he/she can go about this, really, based on the agreement with the Dáil majority. We have to remember still that the Taoiseach still needs to get his cabinet approved of by the Dáil so the selection process should, ideally, be consulted with the Dáil majority.
The shortlisted candidates that are selected by the Taoiseach are then consulted with the Dáil majority and the leaders of this majority agree with the Taoiseach which of these shortlisted candidates would be most acceptable by the Dáil majority. The Taoiseach can ignore these consultations with the leaders of the Dáil majority, of course, these talks are not legally binding. However, should he completely ignore any recommendations he faces the threat that the cabinet of experts will not be passed by the Dáil.
Having selected the ministers, the job of the cabinet is now to create the Government program. The government program would, one must imagine, reflect the main agendas of the parties forming the Dáil majority. Once again the leaders of the Dáil majority would give suggestions to the cabinet and it is up to the cabinet to consider putting them into the Government program or leaving them out. Yet again, these suggestions are not legally binding, the government has a lot of freedom in this process. However, should the recommendations be largely ignored the government faces a backlash when the program will be voted on in the Dáil.
With the full program drafted and all cabinet positions filled, the cabinet seeks its mandate from the Dáil. The Dáil votes, while having two things in mind:
1. Are the candidates truly experts? Are they any suggestions that they would not be up to the job of a minister? Will they pursue along the lines of the party's agenda?
2. Is the Government program reasonable? Does it reflect the party's agenda? Are there points in the program with which the party strongly disagrees?
When the above questions are favorably answered, the Dáil passes the confidence vote to the cabinet and its program giving them their mandate. The cabinet assumes its role and works along the lines of the Government program . However, the work of the cabinet proper is a topic for tomorrow's post. Look forward to it
Monday, July 13, 2009
Technocracy and the Taoiseach
Having established the fact that there is indeed a great government confidence crisis and ineffective model of government prohibits many times for the right decisions to be taken, let us now take a look and how to create a cabinet of experts to tackle this crisis. (Knowing that this system is quite complicated, allow me to split it into a number of posts that will be posted over the next couple of days).
In today's post we will look at how the cabinet of experts would be voted in and function.
The Taoiseach under the current system is elected by the majority in the Dáil. The TD who gains these votes becomes the Taoiseach and is untrusted to from the government. Each minister is, in fact, a TD and doesn't stop being a TD even after their appointment to the various department.
If we look at the technocracy model (government of experts) as proposed by Breakthrough we will see that the model is not remotely different. After the elections the Dáil majority coalition will be formed as a result of the talks between the party leaders. This Dáil majority then agrees on appointing an expert, an apolitical nominee, to become a Taoiseach and proposes this nomination to the Dáil. This model is, in fact, matching the model in work right now. It ensures that the will of the people, as proclaimed in the elections, is listened to and respect by letting the Dáil majority to pass the given candidate for the Taoiseach. The only difference so far is that the Taoiseach nominee is an apolitical figure, one that does not have any ties to any party but rather is an expert.
Now we come to the most important thing about this model, the definition of 'an expert'. An expert is a person who has an expertise in a specific field and experience with interaction in this field to which they are nominated. Alongside that the expert needs to have a proven track record in that field and show that he has been successful. For example if we take Colm McCarthy as an expert on finance, or Brian Mooney as an expert on education (please take these two names with a grain of salt, though, they are just examples thrown in to illustrate the point).
Seeing that we now know what an expert is, we can proceed with the explanation of the establishing of the cabinet of experts. After the Taoiseach nominee gains the approval of the Dáil he/she then most be approved off by the president (more on presidential powers under technocracy in further posts).
After these conditions are met the new Taoiseach is faced with the task of picking his cabinet. How this process should work, shall be discussed in the post tomorrow. Please look forward to it.
In today's post we will look at how the cabinet of experts would be voted in and function.
The Taoiseach under the current system is elected by the majority in the Dáil. The TD who gains these votes becomes the Taoiseach and is untrusted to from the government. Each minister is, in fact, a TD and doesn't stop being a TD even after their appointment to the various department.
If we look at the technocracy model (government of experts) as proposed by Breakthrough we will see that the model is not remotely different. After the elections the Dáil majority coalition will be formed as a result of the talks between the party leaders. This Dáil majority then agrees on appointing an expert, an apolitical nominee, to become a Taoiseach and proposes this nomination to the Dáil. This model is, in fact, matching the model in work right now. It ensures that the will of the people, as proclaimed in the elections, is listened to and respect by letting the Dáil majority to pass the given candidate for the Taoiseach. The only difference so far is that the Taoiseach nominee is an apolitical figure, one that does not have any ties to any party but rather is an expert.
Now we come to the most important thing about this model, the definition of 'an expert'. An expert is a person who has an expertise in a specific field and experience with interaction in this field to which they are nominated. Alongside that the expert needs to have a proven track record in that field and show that he has been successful. For example if we take Colm McCarthy as an expert on finance, or Brian Mooney as an expert on education (please take these two names with a grain of salt, though, they are just examples thrown in to illustrate the point).
Seeing that we now know what an expert is, we can proceed with the explanation of the establishing of the cabinet of experts. After the Taoiseach nominee gains the approval of the Dáil he/she then most be approved off by the president (more on presidential powers under technocracy in further posts).
After these conditions are met the new Taoiseach is faced with the task of picking his cabinet. How this process should work, shall be discussed in the post tomorrow. Please look forward to it.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Government Confidence Crisis
The first and most important idea of Breakthrough is to have a cabinet of experts. Before I venture to how this can be achieved and what would it involve I plan to explain for such a reform in our political scene. For explaining this reason, I plan to use this post today.
Before the Local and European elections a number of opinion polls was conducted to allow for a better approximation of the election results. Irish Times published a Red C poll which particularly struck me. The poll reflected that Fine Gael was far ahead at around 36%, Fianna Fail followed at 24% and Labour was third at 18% with Sinn Fein at 9% and Greens at 4%. The poll also showed the belief of the public for the leaders of the political parties. Leading was Eamon Gilmore with 51%, second was Edna Kenny with 33% and Brian Cowen followed with around 20%.
Now why I am putting forward results from an opinion poll that was conducted more than a month ago? Because this poll also showed one significant finding: the belief of public in the government was record low at 11%! Some attributed this finding to the fact that our government right now was deeply unpopular. However, working the numbers it is clear to see that Fianna Fail and the Green Party in this poll had 28%, which is significantly higher than the 10% confidence in the government. Even if we take into account the leadership of the party leaders and add Eamon Gilmore's and Edna Kenny's leadership points we get 84% opposition which still leaves 14% for the government!
It is not hard to figure out that the 10% does not only reflect the unpopularity of the government we have in power but also the disbelief among the public to the political system we have right now. This, however, is nothing that would be significantly different from the rest of Europe. When surveys are carried out the governments generally score low points in confidence from the people. In some countries even the fire brigade has more public confidence than the government. Therefore the question arises, where is the main source of problem?
In the Czech republic a recents survey has shown that 51% of people support the new government led by Jan Fischer. This government has been in power for only two months, so the findings may not truly reflect anything yet, but the government has already had to face with the problems of economic crisis, salvaging the Czech presidency of the EU and the massive floods. Thus we can deduce that the government has been put under considerable pressure already and take the 51% as a reasonable figure. In comparison the previous governments managed to score 20% at the peak of their popularity during the term in office. So why has Jan Fisher's government so much support? How is it different?
Firstly to answer the latter question. The government in the Czech republic is an government of experts. Each cabinet member is a person with proven track record in his/her field. Jan Fischer himself was a head of the Czech Central Statistic Office. The minister for foreign affairs, Jan Kohout, is a career diplomat, while the minster for finance, Eduard Janota was a minister of state in the ministry of finance for past number of years and I could go on. As you can see all the members of this cabinet are true experts in their field and that is the most significant difference between this cabinet and the previous ones.
However does this still explain the huge popularity? Yes! Not only people recognize that true experts are leading their country but also these experts take decisions that merit the Czech republic and its people, without thinking of political capital. The Czech presidency under Fischer's government was highly praised, the budget in making is set to be prudent to avoid extra borrowing and bringing the state to its knees in future, and the floods were quickly dealt with thanks for fast deployment of army and allowing money to pour into the regions as soon as possible.
This shows the great ability of a cabinet of expert to deal with situations without taking into account the political capital but rather making the correct choices based on their expert judgment. This kind of thinking is what we need, to get people's confidence in the government to rise, because this kind of thinking will benefit the country and the people as it did whenever and wherever it was applied.
Please come back to read tomorrow's post for more information on how this proposed system should work.
Before the Local and European elections a number of opinion polls was conducted to allow for a better approximation of the election results. Irish Times published a Red C poll which particularly struck me. The poll reflected that Fine Gael was far ahead at around 36%, Fianna Fail followed at 24% and Labour was third at 18% with Sinn Fein at 9% and Greens at 4%. The poll also showed the belief of the public for the leaders of the political parties. Leading was Eamon Gilmore with 51%, second was Edna Kenny with 33% and Brian Cowen followed with around 20%.
Now why I am putting forward results from an opinion poll that was conducted more than a month ago? Because this poll also showed one significant finding: the belief of public in the government was record low at 11%! Some attributed this finding to the fact that our government right now was deeply unpopular. However, working the numbers it is clear to see that Fianna Fail and the Green Party in this poll had 28%, which is significantly higher than the 10% confidence in the government. Even if we take into account the leadership of the party leaders and add Eamon Gilmore's and Edna Kenny's leadership points we get 84% opposition which still leaves 14% for the government!
It is not hard to figure out that the 10% does not only reflect the unpopularity of the government we have in power but also the disbelief among the public to the political system we have right now. This, however, is nothing that would be significantly different from the rest of Europe. When surveys are carried out the governments generally score low points in confidence from the people. In some countries even the fire brigade has more public confidence than the government. Therefore the question arises, where is the main source of problem?
In the Czech republic a recents survey has shown that 51% of people support the new government led by Jan Fischer. This government has been in power for only two months, so the findings may not truly reflect anything yet, but the government has already had to face with the problems of economic crisis, salvaging the Czech presidency of the EU and the massive floods. Thus we can deduce that the government has been put under considerable pressure already and take the 51% as a reasonable figure. In comparison the previous governments managed to score 20% at the peak of their popularity during the term in office. So why has Jan Fisher's government so much support? How is it different?
Firstly to answer the latter question. The government in the Czech republic is an government of experts. Each cabinet member is a person with proven track record in his/her field. Jan Fischer himself was a head of the Czech Central Statistic Office. The minister for foreign affairs, Jan Kohout, is a career diplomat, while the minster for finance, Eduard Janota was a minister of state in the ministry of finance for past number of years and I could go on. As you can see all the members of this cabinet are true experts in their field and that is the most significant difference between this cabinet and the previous ones.
However does this still explain the huge popularity? Yes! Not only people recognize that true experts are leading their country but also these experts take decisions that merit the Czech republic and its people, without thinking of political capital. The Czech presidency under Fischer's government was highly praised, the budget in making is set to be prudent to avoid extra borrowing and bringing the state to its knees in future, and the floods were quickly dealt with thanks for fast deployment of army and allowing money to pour into the regions as soon as possible.
This shows the great ability of a cabinet of expert to deal with situations without taking into account the political capital but rather making the correct choices based on their expert judgment. This kind of thinking is what we need, to get people's confidence in the government to rise, because this kind of thinking will benefit the country and the people as it did whenever and wherever it was applied.
Please come back to read tomorrow's post for more information on how this proposed system should work.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Welcome Everyone!
Hello everybody who happened to stumble upon this blog, be it by accident or by intention. My name is Mario and this blog is means for me to publish and depict my political ideas and policies, which are the basis of a political movement Breakthrough, which I am hoping to establish soon. These depictions will cover all topics regarding the given policy ranging from the purpose of such a policy in Ireland to how it should be implemented. I do hope to see you commenting on these post and providing constructive discussions to the post so that you can point out any mistakes that I should make along the way.
Just to give a quick tour of the blog, on the side you can vote whether you support Breakthrough's policies, the blog will be open for one year, starting today. Further there is a shoutbox to which you engage in a discussion regarding topics that are not related to the post. You can also search the blog thanks to google and add to be its followers, yet again thanks to google. On the bottom of the screen current affairs are shown regarding Ireland, the EU and politics in general.
That is all for now, I will start with a first post directly regarding Breakthrough's policies tommorow. I hope I'll see you there.
Just to give a quick tour of the blog, on the side you can vote whether you support Breakthrough's policies, the blog will be open for one year, starting today. Further there is a shoutbox to which you engage in a discussion regarding topics that are not related to the post. You can also search the blog thanks to google and add to be its followers, yet again thanks to google. On the bottom of the screen current affairs are shown regarding Ireland, the EU and politics in general.
That is all for now, I will start with a first post directly regarding Breakthrough's policies tommorow. I hope I'll see you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)