User:Jnestorius/Independent politicians in the Republic of Ireland

< Independent politicians in Ireland

In the politics of the Republic of Ireland, independent or non-party politicians have been elected as Teachtaí Dála (TDs) to Dáil Éireann in small but sometimes significant numbers. Independents have a somewhat larger presence in local government. In Seanad Éireann, independents are usual in the six seats of the university constituencies; and the Taoiseach's eleven nominees often include one or two independent notables alongside members of the government parties.

Although political parties dominate political debate, the multi-seat constituencies of Ireland's single transferable vote (STV) electoral system make it easier for independents to be elected than would be the case with either party-list PR or single-seat constituencies.

Before independence
The island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UK) from the Union of 1801 till the Irish Free State's independence in 1922. Ireland sent MPs to the UK parliament at Westminster, elected by plurality voting. Initially these had the same loose Whig and Tory affiliation as their British counterparts. Through the nineteenth century, the extension of the franchise and the growth of Irish nationalism resulted in increasing numbers of nationalist-minded MPs, who formed a parliamentary bloc with increasing internal coherence and discipline. The Irish Parliamentary Party founded by Charles Stuart Parnell in 1882 was the culmination of this, and served as a model for many later parliamentary parties. The Whigs and Tories had meanwhile solidified into the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, and Irish Unionist MPs aligned with one or other of these. In this environment, few independents managed to be elected, though there were some "Independent Unionist" and "Independent Nationalists".

The Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 established county councils for the counties of Ireland, with elected councillors. At this level, more independents were elected, since local concerns were more important for many voters than the overarching national constitutional question which dominated Westminster elections in Ireland.

Irish Free State
The Irish Free State Seanad was established in large part to allow representation of Irish Unionist minority within the state. Those nominated to the original senate of 1922 were not affiliated with the political parties which nominated them. The 1925 election to replace one quarter of the senators was held on a non-partisan basis and most of those elected were independents. Some framers of the 1922 constitution had an anti-party bias.

Electoral Act 1963
Electoral Act 1963 party affiliation added to ballot papers. "Non party" or blank are allowed for independents; "Independent" is not allowed.

1960 Oireachtas Committee on Electoral Law (whose report informed the Electoral Act 1963) 3rd interim report: [note: agreed 22 March 1961, Jack McQuillan dissenting]
 * 2. In paragraph 29 of its second interim Report [note: paragraph proposed by John Copeland Cole 15 March 1961] the Joint Committee recommended that a candidate at a Dáil Election should be entitled to enter the name of the political affiliation which he represents in the nomination paper and that a candidate may use the expression “Independent” without further formality. The Committee indicated that it was reviewing the question and would submit an early recommendation on its implementation. [...]
 * 4. The Joint Committee recommends that: [...]
 * (ix) where a candidate at an election to Dáil Éireann is not the candidate of a party registered in the Register of Political Parties he shall be entitled, in not more than five words, to state the policy or interest for which he stands but he shall not be entitled to use either the name or title of any political party registered in the Register or any abbreviation of such name or title which so nearly resembles the name or title of such party registered in the Register as to mislead, confuse or deceive. Neither shall such candidate be allowed to use the name of a party registered in the Register either alone or in combination with other words. Any doubt as to whether the description entered in his nomination paper by any candidate complies with the provisions of this subparagraph shall be decided by the returning officer.

Dáil second stage 27 February 1963
 * Anthony Barry: At last we have begun to look at the facts of life and are allowing the use of Party names on the ballot paper. This is an excellent development which makes it much easier for all concerned but particularly the voter. There was always the problem of candidates with similar or near similar names. The Party label will help in this case. I certainly think the word "non-Party" is a better word to use than "Independent" because the word Independent" always had for me a connotation of superiority which my experience of Independents does not justify. [...]
 * Neil Blaney: The question of the non-Party description of those who do not belong to Parties would seem to be received with somewhat mixed feelings. Very often, this is rather a more useful and a better way to describe such people than to describe them as Independents. It is the better way to make clear that if you belong to a Party, you are down as a member of a Party and if you do not belong to a Party, you go down as non-Party.
 * Frank Sherwin: Why not put Independent?
 * Anthony Barry: Non-Party is better.

Dáil committee stage 27 March 1963
 * Frank Sherwin: I move amendment No. 3:
 * In subsection (1), page 20, to delete lines 40 to 48 and substitute:
 * "(b) Where the candidate is not the candidate of a political party registered in the Register of Political Parties he shall be entitled to enter after his name on the nomination paper the expression ‘Independent' or ‘Non-Party' and two other descriptive words, and if he does so, the returning officer shall cause a statement of that expression and such words to be specified in relation to the candidate on all ballot papers and on notices."
 * This Bill gives the best opportunities to Parties. Whereas up to now a nonentity in a Party might not get a vote at all because the supporters of the Party would be thinking in terms of personalities and might miss a nonentity on the panel, this Bill enables a nonentity to have alongside his name "Fianna Fáil", "Labour", "Fine Gael". A nonentity will not miss a vote in future. This Bill ensures that.
 * This Bill tries to tie us down and roll all non-Party candidates into one. There is the difference between chalk and cheese between Independents. There are Independent Ratepayers, Independent Tenants' Representatives. They may be out for each other's blood.
 * This section also affects the ballot paper for municipal elections. There may be 20 or 25 candidates and seven or eight Independents, often with similar names. When certain people look for their candidate's name on the ballot paper, they are not able to distinguish. The nonentity in the Party will get a vote, even though it may be the last vote but there will be trouble trying to distinguish between the non-Party Ratepayer, the non-Party Unionist, the non-Party Commonwealth candidate, and all that sort of thing.
 * In regard to this thing we call democracy, I have many misgivings. It allows a change of Government. That is the only thing in its favour. After that, we have Bills like this to ensure that there is fair play and that whatever rule applies to one group applies to all. The ballot paper should be so simple that even a nitwit will be able to cope and cast his vote according to his choice. The electorate is made up of 60 to 70 per cent intelligent voters; there is another 20 per cent which might be described as a floating vote; and five to seven per cent are stupid people who ask questions like: "Is de Valera going up here?" They ask all sorts of stupid questions. The paper must be simplified for these. Parties can make the best out of this because the voters will see "Fianna Fáil", or whatever it is, and that will be sufficient indication. In the case of the Independents, they will simply be "Non-Party". There have been cases when there were two candidates with the same name going up as Independents; there were two Mullens and two Carrolls on the panel. There must be some distinction made as between one non-Party candidate and another.
 * Everyone knows what "Independent" means. The most stupid persons know that an Independent candidate is a member of no Party, though some Independents are really Party men. I am not one of them; I sit by myself. I do not sit in the Independent seats in the corporation. I am independent of all Independents. I want to get that straight. I am not worried about this section but ballot papers in municipal elections often carry as many as 25 names. How could a voter make head or tail of such a paper with the simple description "non-Party" appearing several times? All the Independents ask is that they be allowed to continue to use the description "Independent". If that request is not acceded to, there will be no fairness in this at all.


 * Mr. Blaney: I can appreciate Deputy Sherwin's attitude on this but we must remember that, up to this, there has never been any question of distinguishing between one candidate and another on the ballot paper. It would appear from the arguments put forward by Deputy Sherwin now that by preventing "Independent" being put after the names in future, that will, in fact, create confusion. The fact is "Independent" has never appeared on a ballot paper up to this and therefore the non-use of "Independent" does not really arise or alter the situation in any way at all. In future, there will be a distinguishing mark and the application of "non-Party" will be sufficient indication as to what the particular name stands for, or does not stand for, if you like. I cannot see that the Independents will lose anything. They never had any identity hitherto.
 * Mr. Sherwin: The Minister will describe himself as Fianna Fáil, not as Fine Gael.
 * Mr. Blaney: The Deputy mentioned how different the Independents are, as different as chalk from cheese. He went on to say that he sits in one place and the other Independents sit somewhere else.
 * Mr. Sherwin: I am only one person.
 * Mr. Blaney: He sits alone in the corporation.
 * Mr. Sherwin: Sure.
 * Mr. Blaney: What does that denote? Does it denote that the other Independents are a group? If they are a group, they are no longer Independent. Yet the argument seems to be that we should, in fact, give legal standing to such a description of people who actually act together but describe themselves as independent in their actions. I cannot really follow this argument. It does not carry conviction to me. "Non-Party" will, in my opinion, be a guide. Surely that is the way those who regard themselves as Independent would wish to be described? Surely that is the real difference between them and the rest of us who belong to political Parties and who are described as belonging to them? Those who belong to no Party will be described as "non-Party". That is, I think, as clear as it is possible to make the situation.
 * Mr. Sherwin: It is not clear.
 * Mr. Blaney: That is the situation so far as these people are concerned. I appreciate what has been said and I have gone into the matter since the Second Reading. The longer I look at it the more convinced I am that the description of "non-Party" and having the Parties named according to the Register of Parties that will be established under the Bill if it becomes law, is by far the best and clearest way to distinguish between all of us.
 * Mr. Sherwin: The Minister is not thinking as we think.
 * Mr. Blaney: Probably not.
 * Mr. Sherwin: The Minister should remember that although we never had this right before, neither had the Parties. The Parties are able to distinguish themselves as Fianna Fáil, Labour, Fine Gael, and so on but all others will be down as "non-Party." In the election campaign, all the publicity will describe them as Christian Democrats, Independent Labour, Independent Republicans, National Progressive Democrats and Independent Ratepayers. In the campaign, they will be asking both clever and stupid to vote for them as Ratepayers but when those people come to the booth, they will look for Ratepayers but they will not see that; they will see "non-Party". The Minister should remember the campaign will be waged on a distinctive type of Independent and when the people come in to vote, they will be looking for that description. I would ask the Minister to think again, in addition to the promise he has already given, between now and the Report Stage about this point.
 * Mr. Blaney: The Deputy has mentioned Independent Ratepayers. If they are going up with the main aim of looking after the interests of the Ratepayers, why not let them be registered as a Party?
 * Mr. Sherwin: There are individual Ratepayers: there are two of them.
 * Mr. Blaney: Why not have it as a registered Party?
 * Mr. Sherwin: What about the Independent candidate? Can I make myself the "Sherwin Party"?
 * Mr. Blaney: That is something I shall have to consider. I suggest where there is a name denoting a particular interest and where there are a number of those people in a constituency or constituencies, they should register themselves as a Party with that name which they feel is a description of them and denotes what they stand for.
 * Jim Tully: That would be against the law, would it not?
 * Mr. Blaney: The idea is to have a registered Party of that name. There may be several names that convey the same interest and if there are several people sharing that interest, why should they not register as a Party and be entitled in law to describe themselves as such-and-such a Party, as well as ensuring that no interlopers can so describe themselves?
 * Mr. Sherwin: In the fashion world, fortunes are charged for distinctive hats and gowns. The whole idea is to be distinctive. Everybody who goes to a racecourse will see what I mean. The owner of a certain hat will be furious to find somebody else has the same thing. It must have individuality. People devote their campaign to that distinctiveness.
 * Brendan Corish: And some people wear ridiculous hats.
 * Mr. Sherwin: I knew a man who wore an old hairy hat and a hairy waistcoat and he said his reason for doing so was that when they saw him once, they would always know him again. Individuals are entitled to be distinctive and not be in a herd. Surely nobody is jealous about that?
 * (Interruptions.)


 * Mr. Sherwin: I am not worried at all but I would ask the Minister to think it over. I am not withdrawing the amendment, unless the Minister agrees to give it further thought.
 * Mr. Blaney: I have already said that I shall do so.
 * Mr. Sherwin: I do not mind if the Minister drops the "Independents" and leaves in "non-Party", but at least give another word to distinguish people, which they could put in. So long as there is one word to distinguish a candidate, I am satisfied.
 * Mr. Blaney: I shall certainly consider the matter between now and Report Stage.
 * Mr. Corish: I hope the Minister will not give it too much consideration.
 * Mr. Blaney: I shall consider it. [note: nothing relevant in Dáil report stage 18 June 1963.]
 * Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dáil committee stage 2 April 1963
 * Frank Sherwin: Before moving the amendment standing in my name, may I ask the Minister was there any Independent on this Select Committee? [...] I should like to know because I would consider such a body a hostile body, if there were no Independents on it. If there was, he must have been asleep.
 * Lionel Booth: There was some Independent Deputy. I think it was the former Deputy [Ted] Russell.
 * Frank Sherwin: That is the man who ceased to be a member on the last election. That is wholly illegal.
 * Neil Blaney: No, it is not.
 * Frank Sherwin: I suggest that the Independents should have been on that Committee. Otherwise, the Committee could be accused of being a hostile committee and of preparing material to suit themselves. Now, it turns out that there has been no Independent since this Dáil met on that Committee. I shall raise the matter in the House. If I had been there, I should have objected to and pointed out certain matters of which the Committee seemed to be ignorant. I am glad now to be informed that there has been no Independent on the Committee since this Dáil met and I accuse the Committee of being hostile to the Independents.
 * Lionel Booth: The Committee did not meet since the present Dáil reassembled.
 * Frank Sherwin: That is extraordinary.
 * Lionel Booth: It had finished its work.

Seanad second stage 10 July 1965
 * John Copeland Cole: The Committee did recommend, as will be seen from the memorandum, that independent or non-party people would be entitled to describe themselves in five words. That has been cut out, and if you are not a registered party you can only put "non-party" on the ballot paper. The idea of putting a political party on the ballot paper at all was introduced for two reasons. The first was, no doubt, to distinguish between parties and similar or nearly similar names. But it was also to eliminate a certain confusion particularly in local elections. In my own county I have known where you can get two people with exactly the same name in different parties, but you could also have two people with exactly the same name as independent or non-party men. It is rather unfair when we have gone so far that we should not have some way of allowing those two to distinguish themselves.
 * Neil Blaney: We had fairly wide discussions in the Dáil about describing a person as "non-Party" on the ballot paper, if he does not belong to a Party. Senator Cole mentioned the case of two non-party candidates with similar names appearing on the same ballot paper. I agree that can happen. However, their address must also appear on the ballot paper, and their occupation. I would lay fairly long odds against two candidates with the same names, the same addresses, and the same occupations, being on the same ballot paper. That is the answer in part, at any rate, to Senator Cole's point that this sort of thing could be confusing. Apart from all that, the two people would have to be non-Party.

Later
Tony Gregory got around this by changing his name to "Tony Gregory-Independent" so it appeared thus on the ballot paper. (Similarly Sean D. Loftus changed his surname so as to appear on the ballot as "Alderman Dublin Bay-Rockall Loftus, Sean D." )

The Electoral Act 1992, when prescribing the ballot-paper format, includes a sample which has "NON-PARTY" for one candidate and "THE INDEPENDENT PARTY" as the party label of another candidate.

A column for party logos was added to the ballot design in 2007, with a corresponding blank space on the row of a non-party candidate. Some voters mistook this space for the place in which to enter the candidate's preference vote. the ballot was redesigned in 2015, moving the logo from the left column to the middle, to reduce the likelihood of spoiling one's vote in this manner.

Catherine Murphy had 2014 PMB replacing "Non-Party" with "Independent". Murphy attempted the same change via a committee-stage amendment on a government bill, but was ruled out of order; Fergus O'Dowd commented anyway:
 * The relevant provisions of the 1992 Act set out that the expression "non-party" may be used where a candidate is not a candidate of a registered political party. This is based on the premise that the expression "non-party" on the ballot paper indicates adequately that a person does not belong to a political party. This description shows briefly, clearly and in a neutral way that the person does not belong to a registered party. It is a simple statement of fact and, as such, we believe it is appropriate for inclusion on the nomination and ballot papers. On the other hand, the description "Independent" could be viewed as a value-laden term and could have different meanings for different people. Indeed, it may not be acceptable to many non-party candidates. I note with interest the number of labels or identities being used by potential non-party candidates, including, for example, The People's Convention, Independents for Equality, Tús Nua, Kildare Action for Change and Independents Together.

Report on Murphy's claim has comments from others.

Liam Weeks says Independents 4 Change is not a real party with a whip, just a ruse to allow candidates to put "Independent" on ballot paper (and allude to Right2Change).

Modern Dáil practice
The Ceann Comhairle is technically considered independent even though he will often have been elected as a party candidate.

Independent Fianna Fáil was not a registered political party.

Technical group for Dáil privileges

"Gene pool" independents

Tony Gregory and the "Gregory deal".

Difference between losing the whip and being expelled from the party.

Increased funding allowance for independents and controversy after Bev rejoined FF.

At other levels
Presidents: Douglas Hyde

MEPs: T.J. Maher, Pat Cox

Seanad: Northern peace process, "independent" university senators (Shane Ross, Ivana Bacik; cf. Brendan Ryan)

Local level: Alfie Byrne; now most mayors elected in party deals

Seanad
Most members of the Free State Seanad were independent, as have been most University Senators. Others are rarer:


 * Elected from panels: Brian O'Rourke (2nd); John MacLoughlin (2nd & 3rd); William Cummins (3rd); Joseph Hannigan (4th); James Parkinson (2nd-5th); Thomas Foran (3rd-5th); John Counihan (3rd–6th); James Green Douglas (3rd–5th & 7th); Richard Anthony (6th & 8th); Patrick Cogan (8th); Michael ffrench-O'Carroll (8th); Joseph Sheridan (8th-9th); George Russell (12th-13th)


 * Nominated by the Taoiseach: 2nd-5th: William Magennis; 2nd-3rd Maurice George Moore; 2nd: Douglas Hyde; 3rd: Laurence O'Neill; 6th & 8th: James Green Douglas; 5th, 7th, 9th & 10th: Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha; 10th-12th: William Sheldon; 14th: Gordon Lambert; 14th-15th: T. K. Whitaker; 16th-18th: John Robb; 16th: James Larkin, Seamus Mallon; 17th: Stephen McGonagle, Bríd Rodgers; 18th: Eamon De Buitléar, George Eogan, Brian Friel, John Magnier; 20th: Sam McAughtry, Gordon Wilson; 21st & 22nd: Maurice Hayes; 23rd: Eoghan Harris

Random notes
Robinson technically independent in 1990. University senators don't whip e.g. Bacik.

STV increases independents; many govts since 1982 rely on support of independents, and some collapse quickly.

Mentions over a few pages in history from 1920s.

1999 local elections indeps did unexpectedly badly given protest-groups and Dáil influence.

Recent trends mentioned on a page here.