Dustin the Turkey so he can build a wall and keep the culchies out.
I welcome this but is the Dublin mayor really able to do anything of significance?
Directly electing people to positions with executive powers is a terrible idea.
The only way to remove elected officials, even when there’s blatant evidence of incompetence or corruption is through impeachment or a recall vote. And the way party politics work in this country, you’d never get huge sections of the population to vote to remove “their guy” from the position.
People in executive positions should be politically neutral, appointed by the county/city council, and able to be fired by the same council if it turns out they’re giving plum contracts to their brother-in-law.
In practice, it could paradoxically see local councils actually end up with less authority, if the mayor effectively ends up as the executive power of the capital.
Another great position for some British spook to avail of.
> The Citizens’ Assembly also recommended that the mayor have the power to raise revenues and to borrow.
>
>Members said the mayor should have the power to introduce new regulations
No, just no. It’s too much sweeping power.
>Another recommendation was that the mayor would be elected for a five-year term, for a maximum of two terms.
Sweeping power for up to 10 years, again, no.
Limerick voted on this 4 yrs ago & they still haven’t legislated for it.
Royston Brady anyone?
And it will be promptly ignored just like the Limerick mayor proposal is
Pity Bertie isn’t on the council still
Ideal scenario would be mayors who get elected with a clear programme of projects they want to enact, where having an electoral mandate for a plan allows them to bypass elements of the planning process as soon as they take office (e.g. skipping the endless public consultations.)
I don’t trust the government not to half-ass this, but it makes sense to have an executive layer that takes in the whole of Dublin.
11 comments
Dustin the Turkey so he can build a wall and keep the culchies out.
I welcome this but is the Dublin mayor really able to do anything of significance?
Directly electing people to positions with executive powers is a terrible idea.
The only way to remove elected officials, even when there’s blatant evidence of incompetence or corruption is through impeachment or a recall vote. And the way party politics work in this country, you’d never get huge sections of the population to vote to remove “their guy” from the position.
People in executive positions should be politically neutral, appointed by the county/city council, and able to be fired by the same council if it turns out they’re giving plum contracts to their brother-in-law.
In practice, it could paradoxically see local councils actually end up with less authority, if the mayor effectively ends up as the executive power of the capital.
Another great position for some British spook to avail of.
> The Citizens’ Assembly also recommended that the mayor have the power to raise revenues and to borrow.
>
>Members said the mayor should have the power to introduce new regulations
No, just no. It’s too much sweeping power.
>Another recommendation was that the mayor would be elected for a five-year term, for a maximum of two terms.
Sweeping power for up to 10 years, again, no.
Limerick voted on this 4 yrs ago & they still haven’t legislated for it.
Royston Brady anyone?
And it will be promptly ignored just like the Limerick mayor proposal is
Pity Bertie isn’t on the council still
Ideal scenario would be mayors who get elected with a clear programme of projects they want to enact, where having an electoral mandate for a plan allows them to bypass elements of the planning process as soon as they take office (e.g. skipping the endless public consultations.)
I don’t trust the government not to half-ass this, but it makes sense to have an executive layer that takes in the whole of Dublin.