We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
SMALLER DÁIL PARTIES and groupings joined forces this week to rail against mooted plans to cut their speaking time in favour of doling out increased time to backbenchers from larger parties.
Fianna Fáil is proposing a change to Dáil rules which would effectively slash the speaking time afforded to parties like the Greens and the Social Democrats.
Under current rules, backbenchers from the larger parties rarely get a chance to speak at debates, or they have their speaking time shunted late into the evening. Independent deputies and those from smaller parties have more chances to contribute to each debate.
“Contrary to the accusation that we are trying to silence elected representatives, we believe that all TDs should have an opportunity to contribute to Dáil debates,” a Fianna Fáil spokesperson said, in response to the complaints from the smaller groupings.
Today we’re asking: Should time be taken from smaller groupings, in favour of backbenchers?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Each TD should be given an equal amount of time. More time should not be given to AAA over a backbench TD for FG or FF, which is what’s happening at the moment.
@P C: well they have party whip system.. they are just gonna voice the same opinion as their front bench colleagues – who wants that, same old, same old and if their opinion was really important enough they’d be on the front bench and irregardless of what they say, they’re just gonna vote the same as their colleagues.. its a ploy for bigger parties to gain more popularity for their unknowns.. definite no..
@Sean Baylon: they were all elected by the people in their respective constituencies. If more people choose to vote for one party, why should their TD then get less speaking time. Utter nonsense.
@Sean Baylon: giving longer speaking time to the smaller parties is the same as the suggestion that there should be gender quotas to increase the number of women ministers. Complete bull. Equal speaking time for ALL TDs.
@P C: That doesn’t make much sense. With all the tds we have we would get less motions passed through the dail than we have now. Which is feck all because of the shannigans. As for back benchers who wants to listen to the rubbish the spout agreeing with their ministers. No way. Big party gets an hour on a subject then pro-rata for smaller party.. Might make them all get to the heart of the matter before going around the houses airing their lungs.
@P C: once a front bench Ted has spoken there is no point in a back bencher speaking it will only be a repetition of what was said. It’s not much of a debate if they are all saying the same.
@Sean Baylon:
… irregardless…
Reducing speaking times for opposition voices is detrimental to democracy, and undermines the whole parliament. FF and FG are enjoying the fake opposition situation they have now, and would prefer if their only dissent was SF (who are still seen as populist far left loonies by their supporters). Having intelligent opposition in the smaller parties, with adequate speaking time, able to counter FFFG is necessary, otherwise we should just throw away any vestige that the dail is anything other than a rubber stamp.
@Gulliver Foyle: you’re missing the point. It’s about giving equal time to everyone. Why should a TD from AAA get more time than a backbench TD from FG?
@P C: Because we need a more balanced debate. Yes everyone should have their say, but more so we need to be able to hear other points of view, not everyone singing off the same hymn sheet.
Particularly when parties have a whip system so they are all pushing the same agenda (even when they don’t all agree with something).
@Conrad Shields: the people make the decision who to vote for. If the majority like one particular view then tough. Equality of speaking time for every TD.
@P C: I think you are completely (or deliberately) missing the point on why motions in the dail require a debate. This is not the same as every TD having an equal vote, this is about improving the understanding what the vote is about by listening to an opposition opinion. The decision of the party has already been taken that their representative is speaking for all of them. There is no comparison between the amount of work that a TD like Catherine Murphy (or even Coppinger or Boyd Barrett) ours into researching the bill being discussed compared with FF’s vacuous input. The intention of reducing the speaking time to be trusted to the number of TDs is simply to be so small that any debate is swallowed up completely by FF echoing back what FG have said.
@Gulliver Foyle: Well put. P C doesn’t seem to get it.
@Gulliver Foyle: so not all votes in an election should be treated equally? Some how the constituency that voted for Coppinger has a greater right to hear her than a constituency that voted for a backbench TD?
What version of democracy is that?
@P C: What! People don’t vote for one particular point of view. They vote for various reasons and what is more important to them (some bizarre and ridiculous – “because he fixed the road”, “because we have always voted X”, even going back to the civil war). Also, people tend to vote for the big names and parties often suck up 2nd preference votes.
Just because I voted for X, does not mean I agree with everything they do or say.
I want to hear all points of view and decide myself what I believe to be best for the country.
@Gulliver Foyle: esp when the backbencher is of the ilk of Fidelma Healy eames
@Conrad Shields: I agree so then there should be equal time for all TDs. It shouldn’t be weighted unfairly in favour of smaller parties. This smacks of gender quotas.
@Gulliver Foyle: A balanced approach to unbalanced positions distorts reality. The far far left parties only represent a tiny fraction of the electorate but act and propogate their minority points of view as if they represent the majority. In this way by having a disproportionate amount of speaking time in relation to their national vote they wish to crate the impression and reality that the majority of electorate do and should think the same. This is a subtle form of indoctrination.
@P C: Not when they are just repeating the party message. That won’t lead to proper debating of ideas & opinions.
Just allows the few to give the impression of majority thinking.
Do you think the children’s hospital should be located in St James? It would appear that the majority of the country think it should not, but the backbenchers of the ruling party have had to get behind the decision of (who???). They are trying to present this as the right decision.
If the population are hearing more than 50% of the Dail saying Black is White (because it suits the cabinet narrative), they are more likely to believe it & less likely to question that stance.
Would you be defending this so hard if ‘the lefties’ (your popular term) were in power looking to reduce the speaking time of your choice?
@P C: “somehow constituency a has a greater right”.. this is national politics, and laws covering Ireland. Coppinger, and even Healy Rae, Lowery etc.. are not discussing who’s pothole gets fixed, or who gets the next bed in hospital, they are discussing issues that relate to everyone equally. When Catherine Murphy gets to debate a motion, it’s not to represent only wherever in Kildare elected her, it’s too out her parties opinion as a counter. You don’t seem to get the whole national politics thing, and what a democracy is about. If all TDs were elected on independent merit outside a party system you may be right, but they are not.
@P C: When the party whip system is removed, and TDs from any party have the right, without any censure, to voice their opinions and beliefs on any subject being debated, you might have a reasonable point.
In all your answers, you refuse to deal with the party whip system. You refuse to acknowledge that TD’s are constrained in what they’re allowed to say. Once one party member states the party’s position on any given issue, what’s the point in listening to a choir all singing off the same hymn sheet?
This is simply an attempt to shut up the likes of Mick Wallace, who despite what people may think of him, has done more to bring accountability to the governments of the country. That’s democracy in action.
@P C: Jesus you can’t be that thick. It is supposed to be debate therefore you need opposing views.
@P C: absolutely right….especially when they are talking through their a*ses!!!
No. They perform a very important function in the dail. This is to challenge the gov and hold them to account on everything they do. Otherwise FG would just go off and do their own thing, start acting like dictators and we’d need national protests to stop them from doing silly things like going to far with austerity and taxes.
@Adrian: it’s actually the main opposition party that’s proposing the change, not FG.
@P C: In reality, coalition partner and ideological bed fellow..
@P C: two cheeks of the same arse. FF are no different than FG. All boys together. Why would you think any different after all they have let FG away with in the last year plus. Even John Powers death because of twisted report didn’t make any of them blink an eye
@Mary Murphy: well 60%+ of the electorate voted for that arse. So tough.
@P C: FF. That says it all. It was howlin who highlighted all the most important recent events in the dail, the garda whistle blowers, the Anglo case, and more. Martin never highlighted these and he just wants to silence howlin and the smaller parties because it undermines Martins position in the dail as the supposed main opposition leader while maintaining the cosy relationship between FF and FG in gov. Martin is looking very weak recently with both this and Leo calling his bluff on the ag thing.
@P C: 49.8% voted for the FG/FF combined votes. You do realise the country is governed by a MINORITY government?
The fact it gets unwavering support from it’s pretend opposition FF, who act to all intents and purposes as coalition partners of FG.
@P C: main opposition. You guys crack me up.
@Stephen Brady: havnt been near the journal in ages mostly cos of the comments sections and the very first thing i noticed is this new profile P.C., which one of the trolls did he replace i.e. what profile did he use before??? sounds bit like that idiot who had thebig gorilla as his profile, damned if i can remmebr his name but this perosn sounds like the same guy ,,, good bye journal nothing has changed
Typical F.F.cute hoor tactics ,In a coalition ,pretending to be the main opposition party .Wanting to silence smaller parties and true independents many who have highlighted what the whistle-blowers have had to go through ,I did not read about any backbencher from F.F .or .F.G. doing that ? Backbenchers are there to make up the numbers,told how to vote .go to funerals ,keep the seat safe
All voices should be heard once the majority is safe being the majority the wheels of democracy slow down
@Andrew Ó Conghaile: Eats shoots and leaves
ALL these parties started out as minority parties ,you either believe in democracy or you dont .never silence the minority, treat them with equality ,tomorrow they may control the balance of power .
How about answering the fcking questions that are asked in stead of waffling on about something else
They never have anything productive to add, keep the loony left silent.
Yes reduce Solidarity party time
Can FF not just give some of their existing time to back benchers? Like seriously most of them are yes-men anyways. We should have fair time for smaller groups who represent minorities, who need the representation. Besides FFG use a whip system, so there won’t be debate, just agreeing, or local gombeens shouting about why gets no metro, but Dublin gets everything.
The way that the Dail works is a joke in my opinion. The Parliamentarian questions and their written replies read out by Ministers is a joke. These replies are researched and handed to the relevant Ministers, and most of the time they haven’t a clue what they are reading out. Far too much time taken up with that, and then only the buck that posed the question in the first place is there along with the Minister replying. When the house is sitting all TDs should be in there . When we see the Commons on the BBC they all appear to be in there.
@Eugene Comaskey: I thought this too, but the commons has more MPs than it has seats, so I am told.
Subheading is misleading. Under FF proposal, backbencher from FF, FG would STILL have LESS speaking time that those from AAA etc. They would just have LESS by a slightly smaller amount.
Completely in favour of anything that muzzles the likes of Ruth Coppinger.
@Keano: why?
Basically another way to shut the small people up.
Nah, just gag that middle class prat bobby boy barrett, the champagne socialist.
@winston smith: I don’t think RBB is as bad as Coppinger. She’s totally obnoxious.
Jane, I don’t think I’d like to be ‘greeted’ at a hotel reception by her.
It is extremely unfair for smaller parties to be forced to cut there times short. They don’t even have enough time as it is. FF are the first of the opposition to speak and are dominating speaking times as it is. FF say they want an Ireland for all but yet want to cut members of smaller parties times who were voted in to represent there constituency. It is a slap in the face to the people of Ireland who vote for parties like People before Profit, Social Democrats, Green Party etc. This just shows me FF and FG are threatened by these parties because these are the parties who are really the most in touch of the problems which face this country today.
Interesting to read the comments. They reflect what happen in the Dail. A few people dominating the majority of the comments.
When Dail debates are shown on TV we get Coppinger, Wallace, Boyd-Barrett, Clare Daly spouting their view -their amount of coverage is hugely dispropionate to their support. On top of this the Shinner roll out their cult followers.
They then appear on all the main talk shows spouting the same rubbish.
Every TD should have the same time allocated to them and they are entitled to the same speaking time so that they represent their constituents.
@Bull Spite: if they bother to leave the bar ?
Whether TDs have expanded or restricted speaking rights in the Dail, it is still a known fact that backbenchers who get an opportunity to speak on a topic often find themselves speaking to a nearly empty chamber. Formal debates in the Dail rarely change the minds of deputies about government policies and proposed legislation. Often the intended audience for speeches is the media-attentive public outside the chamber. Sometimes during the committee stage of a bill, the responsible minister accepts amendments suggested by backbenchers and others. The real debates that decide what will appear on the statute books are those unrecorded discussions held in party committee rooms.
They are the most vocal and should have their time cut by 90 percent due to noise pollution
Democracy a government by the people for the people to enact the will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority.
Insignifigant backbenchers moaning..tough.leave ur party if ur not happy about being gagged and mad mick does all the céac bó caint
Reduced!!. Should be scrapped for all parties. Most useless politicians ever, government and opposition. General election now.
That’s the dumbest question
Of course they shouldn’t
if your gonna speak the room /dail should be full i have not seen that? talking to thin air is like blowing in the wind and politicians are so rude x and some of you are rude too
have your say