Time to scrap local and European elections

There is one incontrovertible conclusion that can be drawn from the local and European elections: nobody took the purpose of the elections seriously.

Not the candidates, not the parties, not the public, not the media.

Consider:

1. The public, who ignored local and European issues when voting
2. The candidates, who ignored local and European issues when campaigning
3. The media, who ignored local and European issues when reporting and analysing the campaigns
4. Party political leaders, who ignored the local and European issues when giving post-election analysis (Labour leader Eamon Gilmore described the elections as a "referendum on the government" and "nothing to do with local or planning issues" on Prime Time last night).

Some media commentators have suggested that these elections should be scrapped. They are right. In my view, we should:

(a) scrap county councils or have them selected by TDs. (After all, a TD is the only category of elected person that the public, the media and the political establishment cares about.) The only exception would be if we make them much stronger, such as giving them the power to raise significant taxes locally (which they do not want).

(b) scrap elections for MEPs and have them selected by the Dail, based on party strength. If independents want to have their day, run for the Dail.

The electorate, the media and the political establishment have passed their verdict on these elections: they neither want nor care about elections about councils or the European Parliament.

Comments

[orlaith]

According to RTE's exit poll voters said they were driven in the main by local issues and candidates. Roughly half said they were influenced partly by the government's bungling of the economy. It shouldn't be surprising that national issues are foremost in people's minds at the moment and of course that will have some influence on people's decision, unless you live with your head in the sand.

As someone who has canvassed on behalf of a number of Labour candidates over the past few months I have to say that local issues such as schools, management companies, hospital services and local amenities dominated on the doorsteps. People were also concerned with local job creation and public transport. I would be interested to know what other media commentators have suggested that the local elections be scrapped. Was it some windbag from the Independent by any chance?

[Jason O'Mahony]

Schools, management companies, and hospital services are not run by local councils. Have you not proven Adrian's point?

[orlaith]

I think perhaps you are missing the point here. Local councillors do have a voice in defending local services such as lobbying for vital services in local hospitals and vigorously defending ward closures in local hospitals or care centres.

With regard to management companies Labour councillors have been working with many residents to dissolve management companies and ensure that the council takes these estates in charge. This process is ongoing in a number of cases.

Local councils are important with regard to processing planning applications for new school buildings and community facilities. The process involves listening to the concerns of residents while also ensuring benefits to the wider community in terms of sporting facilities. The importance of local democracy is vital so that we all have a stake in how our community develops in the future.

[Adrian Weckler]

Orlaith,

You list one or two things that local councils are responsible for, things that are important to the people they affect.

The problem is that none of those issues -- or any local issues -- appeared to play any significant part in any but a handful of campaigns across the country.

Quite simply, no-one wants to vote for a council.

Why have Fianna Fail and the Greens suffered meltdowns? Because their competence at taking over estates from management companies was sub-par?

Sorry -- the results tell the real story.

In my view, you could abolish local councils in the morning the public simply would not be moved.

However, political parties would be moved. Because they feel the locals are important as a dry run for what really counts -- the Dail.

In my view, that is not a good enough reason to hold an election.

And councillors themselves have very ambivalent approaches to their own chambers. How would they react if told they were to be given the power to raise taxes (a real power)?

They'd run a mile, wouldn't they?

From what I can see, most councillors are primarily interested in a shot at the Dail. Sure, they may well be interested in their local areas. But as a secondary concern: show me a local councillor who is so passionate about being a councillor that he/she would not swap it for a Dail seat, if it was offered on a plate...

To sum up:

-- political parties care, the public doesn't
-- councils have little or no power
-- there is little justification for an election

[orlaith]

"But as a secondary concern: show me a local councillor who is so passionate about being a councillor that he/she would not swap it for a Dail seat, if it was offered on a plate..."

That is completely beside the point. I don't see what's wrong with that? Any councillor should be entitled to stand in a general election at some stage if that's what they want. It's perverse to suggest that they're somehow not committed to serving the local community by aspiring to be at T.D. at some point. Should a junior doctor not aspire to being a consultant? A staff journalist not aspire to being an editor? A Chicago senator not aspire to being the president? I don't think it's fair to be derisive of political ambition if the motivation is to bring about a positive impact on society by implementing the policies that people elect you for.

[Adrian]

"I don't think it's fair to be derisive of political ambition if the motivation is to bring about a positive impact on society by implementing the policies that people elect you for."

What policies were Labour councillors (or any party's councillors) elected for?

My point about councillors wanting to be TDs was not to disparage ambition; it was to suggest that the entire local election process is important to politicians only as a dry run for the Dail rather than as any commitment to Council issues.

For example, how many Labour (or any other party) councillors have spoken, post-election, about their plans for the Council? How many of their party leaders have made any reference whatsoever to the work of councils, post-election?

Face it -- they don't care!

Even Eamon Gilmore (with a newly elected Nessa Childers standing beside him -- for shame, Eamon, zero manners) told RTE that the European and local elections were not about local or European issues; they were "a referendum on this government".

Brian Cowen, John Gormley and Enda Kenny suggested exactly the same.

[Jason O'Mahony]

"local councillors do have a voice in defending local services such as lobbying for vital services in local hospitals and vigorously defending ward closures in local hospitals or care centres."

Again, nothing that ordinary organised groups could not do themselves. Neither FF, FG or Labour are willing to devolve the running of local hospitals to local communities. "Lobbying"? "Vigourously defending"? I'm sorry Orlaith, but this is all waffle.
Why didn't Labour in government let us elect powerful mayors who don't need to "lobby" but actually appoint and sack the people who run these services? Why didn't Labour in government devolve school budgets to local councils, and let then decide, not "lobby", who gets what money? We have elected 100s of professional whingers to "call" for things as opposed to decide things.

I do accept your point about management companies.

In other countries, people do actually enter local government to stay there, as opposed to using it as a platform to advance their careers. After all, if being a councillor in local government why would one want to be a TD? Ask Mayor Daley in Chicago.