Greens demand to see councillors' senate votes - Irish Times

[Insider2007]

Today's (Saturday's) Irish Times reported that the Green leadership not only insisted on telling Green councillors which FF senate candidates to vote for, but demanded to be able to see their ballot papers to make sure the councillors voted as instructed. Understandably the councillors told the leadership to f*** off.

All senate ballots are, like all other ballots electoral ballots, strictly confidential and legally no-one has the right to see a ballot paper to make sure people voted as instructed to. That was how landlords in Ireland won election to Irish seats in Westminster. It was something Daniel O'Connell fought against, and was finally abolished in these islands in 1872 by Gladstone.

Haughey famously broke his own party rules in the 1980s, which required secret ballots, insisting on open votes so that he could see who opposed him. (He also gambled, correctly, that being forced to go public would frighten waverers from opposing him.)

If Bertie Ahern, Enda Kenny, Pat Rabbitte, Mary Harney or Gerry Adams demanded to see their councillors' senate ballot votes to ensure the votes were cast the way they demanded, there would be an outcry within their parties, the media would make a major issue of it, and there would be calls for heads to roll over at act seen as against every principle of democracy.

If the Greens were in opposition they would be sitting on the high moral ground condemning whoever proposed such a "Stalinist" and "anti-democratic" interference with the democratic process.

Policies may change their stances on issues. But for the leadership of a party that used to be informal that there was not a leader, to demand a right to vet councillors' votes to ensure they vote for the right FF senate candidates, is such a u-turn it is astonishing.

What on earth has happened to the Greens when some at a senior level seem to want to model their standards of behaviour on Haughey?

[dubsthcentralboy]

Today's (Saturday's) Irish Times reported that the Green leadership not only insisted on telling Green councillors which FF senate candidates to vote for, but demanded to be able to see their ballot papers to make sure the councillors voted as instructed. Understandably the councillors told the leadership to f*** off.

All senate ballots are, like all other ballots electoral ballots, strictly confidential and legally no-one has the right to see a ballot paper to make sure people voted as instructed to. That was how landlords in Ireland won election to Irish seats in Westminster. It was something Daniel O'Connell fought against, and was finally abolished in these islands in 1872 by Gladstone.

Haughey famously broke his own party rules in the 1980s, which required secret ballots, insisting on open votes so that he could see who opposed him. (He also gambled, correctly, that being forced to go public would frighten waverers from opposing him.)

If Bertie Ahern, Enda Kenny, Pat Rabbitte, Mary Harney or Gerry Adams demanded to see their councillors' senate ballot votes to ensure the votes were cast the way they demanded, there would be an outcry within their parties, the media would make a major issue of it, and there would be calls for heads to roll over at act seen as against every principle of democracy.

If the Greens were in opposition they would be sitting on the high moral ground condemning whoever proposed such a "Stalinist" and "anti-democratic" interference with the democratic process.

Policies may change their stances on issues. But for the leadership of a party that used to be informal that there was not a leader, to demand a right to vet councillors' votes to ensure they vote for the right FF senate candidates, is such a u-turn it is astonishing.

What on earth has happened to the Greens when some at a senior level seem to want to model their standards of behaviour on Haughey?

Have you been asleep for the past couple of weeks outsider? This story has been going on for ages. You were better as the analyser...

[Insider2007]

Today's (Saturday's) Irish Times reported that the Green leadership not only insisted on telling Green councillors which FF senate candidates to vote for, but demanded to be able to see their ballot papers to make sure the councillors voted as instructed. Understandably the councillors told the leadership to f*** off.

All senate ballots are, like all other ballots electoral ballots, strictly confidential and legally no-one has the right to see a ballot paper to make sure people voted as instructed to. That was how landlords in Ireland won election to Irish seats in Westminster. It was something Daniel O'Connell fought against, and was finally abolished in these islands in 1872 by Gladstone.

Haughey famously broke his own party rules in the 1980s, which required secret ballots, insisting on open votes so that he could see who opposed him. (He also gambled, correctly, that being forced to go public would frighten waverers from opposing him.)

If Bertie Ahern, Enda Kenny, Pat Rabbitte, Mary Harney or Gerry Adams demanded to see their councillors' senate ballot votes to ensure the votes were cast the way they demanded, there would be an outcry within their parties, the media would make a major issue of it, and there would be calls for heads to roll over at act seen as against every principle of democracy.

If the Greens were in opposition they would be sitting on the high moral ground condemning whoever proposed such a "Stalinist" and "anti-democratic" interference with the democratic process.

Policies may change their stances on issues. But for the leadership of a party that used to be informal that there was not a leader, to demand a right to vet councillors' votes to ensure they vote for the right FF senate candidates, is such a u-turn it is astonishing.

What on earth has happened to the Greens when some at a senior level seem to want to model their standards of behaviour on Haughey?

Have you been asleep for the past couple of weeks outsider? This story has been going on for ages. You were better as the analyser...

Any chance you might answer the issue instead of doing the traditional FF red-herring nonsense?

[baldur0300]

It's bad tactics by the GP HQ. People don't like being strong armed like this and the councillors can simply tell the inspector to feck off. They are entitled to a secret ballot. There are much better ways available to the GP HQ to achieve the same result without backing them into the corner like that. There aren't that many GP councillors. Surely it would have been possible to discuss it with them first and convince them that it was necessary for the sake of the coalition especially as their Taoiseach's 11 appointments are dependant on them getting FF senators elected.

[Pidge]

What on earth has happened to the Greens when some at a senior level seem to want to model their standards of behaviour on Haughey?

That's a pretty pathetic way of putting it. I don't like this idea, and I support the councillors who've refuse to do this, but this isn't a measure to try and "frighten" councillors into voting for a particular person.

[Insider2007]

It's bad tactics by the GP HQ. People don't like being strong armed like this and the councillors can simply tell the inspector to feck off. They are entitled to a secret ballot. There are much better ways available to the GP HQ to achieve the same result without backing them into the corner like that. There aren't that many GP councillors. Surely it would have been possible to discuss it with them first and convince them that it was necessary for the sake of the coalition especially as their Taoiseach's 11 appointments are dependant on them getting FF senators elected.

True. What astonishes me is that someone in HQ actually thinks that (a) strong-arming councillors can be done, and (b) that it is even legal.

The Greens used be so bottom-up that they had no leader and could barely agree on whether to use posters at one stage. Suddenly, in only a couple of years they have gone from having hardly any central control to having people at national level who think they can force elected councillors to do what the national party wants them to do on something as strictly controlled legally as casting senate ballots. If anyone in FG HQ suggested doing that, the leader, deputy leader and front bench would suggest they take a break and come back when their cop-on had returned. Bertie knows how to influence without this sort of nonsense. It is astonishing that of all parties the Greens in their HQ would try this.

[Pidge]

The Greens used be so bottom-up that they had no leader and could barely agree on whether to use posters at one stage. Suddenly, in only a couple of years they have gone from having hardly any central control to having people at national level who think they can force elected councillors to do what the national party wants them to do on something as strictly controlled legally as casting senate ballots.

I don't regard this as a huge change in the party. It is, as far as I can tell, an isolated incident.

[Squire Allworthy]

I don't regard this as a huge change in the party. It is, as far as I can tell, an isolated incident.

Firstly it should never have happened, secondly the fact that it did gives a very clear indication of attitude.

I have heard it said that there are issues in the Green Party surrounding control freakery perhaps this is just a visible symptom of that problem.

[Eddiepops]

This was a misunderstanding. As it is councillors will be required to be in a room with a civil servant to administer the ballot, and no one else, so even if HQ did want to to check the ballots they would not be able. Bit of a break down in communication I think

[baldur0300]

Well it seems to be a rather massive breakdown considering your councillors are running to the papers instead of talking to your HQ