What is the seanad for?

Pub07

Can anyone tell me what the purpose of this institution is? Seems like a complete exercise in pointlessness if you ask me.

Aviator55

Creating employment for government TDs who fail to get re-elected or jobs for appointed hacks.

klep⋅toc⋅ra⋅cy 

a government or state in which those in power exploit national resources and steal; rule by a thief or thieves.

Pub07

Thats what I was thinking.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Its main business is the revising of legislation sent to it by Dáil Éireann. However, in recent years the Government has tended to make greater use of Seanad Éireann to initiate legislation. Seanad Éireann can initiate and revise legislation but under the Constitution its legislative role is restricted in that it cannot initiate Money Bill i.e. financial legislation, and can only make recommendations but not amendments to such Bills. The fact that a Dáil Bill must be examined also by Seanad Éireann is a safeguard against legislation being enacted too quickly. In addition to its legislative role, Seanad Éireann also debates important issues. Indeed, as the Government is constitutionally responsible to Dáil Éireann, Seanad Éireann can debate these issues with greater freedom because the fate of the Government will not be at stake. .

Well you did ask.
:P

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Pub07 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the purpose of this institution is? Seems like a complete exercise in pointlessness if you ask me.

Retirement home for the bewilderd, reward for cronies, 'I have to give the fecker something but don't want him able to do damage with it...', sin bin, purgatory, lurking point for those awaiting a decent job....all this and more. Its sort of a swiss army knife for the Government of the day....

ejmaztec

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who didn't show up?

LoveDucati2

A way for more jobs to be duplicated

Time Magazine

The members of the Seanad are not elected by common franchise, i.e. by the punter on the street. They're elected by graduates of universities and by county councillors.

As they're not elected directly they don't have to pander to stupid populism. For example, Trinity graduates elect three. The three they have at the moment are Shane Ross, David Norris and Ivana Bacik. All three contribute well to the national debate: Ross provides a bit of business sense, Norris some much-needed lefty swagger and Bacik a bit of modern, urban feminism.

When you have people like these debating legislation, it's a different ball-game to the populism of Jackie Healy-Rae or Michael Ring. Healy-Rae and Ring have their place in democracy (i.e. the Dáil), but everyone can see the potential advantages of having people like Shane Ross or Ivana Bacik suggesting ammendments to legislation. But both of these people have failed to be elected by popular mandate before.

Now that's the point of the Seanad. Whether it fulfills its duties very well or not is another matter.

OhNoYouDidn't

Hate to be a peadant Mr Economist, but did Bacick not lose her seat to Mary Henry?

But the rest of your post is correct. The idea of the Seanad is that actual experts get involved in the legislative process without having to pander to a fickle electorate and answer to a whip. Guys like Shane Ross, Fergal Quinn, David Norris etc who don't feel the need to be corrupted by a party machine. There are comparatively few party hacks in there.

It serves a purpose.

thebman

The Economist wrote: »

The members of the Seanad are not elected by common franchise, i.e. by the punter on the street. They're elected by graduates of universities and by county councillors.

As they're not elected directly they don't have to pander to stupid populism. For example, Trinity graduates elect three. The three they have at the moment are Shane Ross, David Norris and Ivana Bacik. All three contribute well to the national debate: Ross provides a bit of business sense, Norris some much-needed lefty swagger and Bacik a bit of modern, urban feminism.

When you have people like these debating legislation, it's a different ball-game to the populism of Jackie Healy-Rae or Michael Ring. Healy-Rae and Ring have their place in democracy (i.e. the Dáil), but everyone can see the potential advantages of having people like Shane Ross or Ivana Bacik suggesting ammendments to legislation. But both of these people have failed to be elected by popular mandate before.

Now that's the point of the Seanad. Whether it fulfills its duties very well or not is another matter.

Shane Ross has great ideas but everytime I see him, he is being ignored by the government.

I think the reason people say the Seanad is useless is that most of their amendments and ideas seem to be ignored no matter how intelligent they are.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

While I agree with you Mr Economist on the lack of true democracy in selecting the Seanad, please keep in mind that there are the Labour and Agricultural Panels giving the Farming Communities and Trade Union memebers the semblance of a voice in the selection process.

sceptre

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Hate to be a peadant Mr Economist, but did Bacick not lose her seat to Mary Henry?

No.

I can be a pedant, me.

Time Magazine

Jett Tinkling Tide wrote: »

While I agree with you Mr Economist on the lack of true democracy in selecting the Seanad, please keep in mind that there are the Labour and Agricultural Panels giving the Farming Communities and Trade Union memebers the semblance of a voice in the selection process.

You're right, I should have clarified that I didn't mean "just universities and CCers".

Mary Henry retired, the Bacik one replaced her.

brim4brim, I didn't say the Seanad were effective, but I did say what their point was/is.

turgon

Funny paragraph on Aertel today regarding the Seaned and the Anglo-Irish Bill - went something like "Senator Whoever was annoyed that the Seaned was called to vote on the bill". As if he had better things to do than, em, his job?