FG will cut 20 TDs and abolish Senate, says Kenny

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

spadder

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1017/politics.html

I was wondering, how many FGer's are in the Seanad?

Nodin

I know its fairly irrelevant, but it'd be messy to remove it. Personally I'd like to see it replaced by an upper house that had a pair, like the American or Brit one.

Fair enough on cutting wages....Not sure about the cutting of 20 TDs...that might just be a bit of the oul gerrymander that would suit the two larger parties-I'd want to see detail.

kippy

Nodin wrote: »

I know its fairly irrelevant, but it'd be messy to remove it. Personally I'd like to see it replaced by an upper house that had a pair, like the American or Brit one.

Fair enough on cutting wages....Not sure about the cutting of 20 TDs...that might just be a bit of the oul gerrymander that would suit the two larger parties-I'd want to see detail.

Being completely honest about it, its a great idea but cutting the 20 td's aint gonna happen.
Imagine telling the electorate that their losing a TD in their area, the same electorate who havent been the smartest with voting in the past.

Id love to see it happen mind....

dlofnep

Nodin wrote: »

Fair enough on cutting wages....Not sure about the cutting of 20 TDs...that might just be a bit of the oul gerrymander that would suit the two larger parties-I'd want to see detail.

Agreed.

All for the cutting of wages however for over-earners. Kenny won't implement this. It's just a vote grabber.

Biggins

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I would.
If - if there had to be some sort of replacement, instead I'd put in place a more specialised highly trained legal committee team.

spadder

- Cutting the salaries of the Taoiseach and ministers to create parity with other countries - no brainer, I say cut it by half to weed out the freeloaders.

Seanad has to go, If they were willing to pontificate on a voluntary basis, then let it stay.

Only 20 TD’s?

murphaph

I'd cut the Seanad in heartbeat. To cut 20 TDs you'd probably have to rejig the whole system-well worth doing but I'd like to see him go further and propose a change to PR List and away from PR STV. Would like to see the dail reduced to 100 members to be honest. It's plenty for a small country of 4.5 million souls.

It goes without saying that I'd love to see the salaries of all TDs, especially the Taoiseach and ministers by a good chunk to pull them not just into line with other developed nations, but lower.

dresden8

I get the distinct impression that Kenny makes policy up on the fly fuelled by the need to get a headline.

He is a terrible leader.

eoinbn

In it's current form it's pretty worthless. However instead of abolishing it I would increase it's power. We have to get away from the idea of voting for local politicians, for local reasons, and then expect them to run the country! The Dail is what needs to be cut, not the Senate/Seanad.

maynooth_rules

I want to see the Seanad gone in a minute. I hate hearing ***** like Dan Boyle, get their wages payed by us, when they have continously rejected by the electorate. The wages and expenses we have to pay for a pointless body is a disgrace. Eoghan Harris for gods sake. If that prick isn't a good enough reason to scrap the Seanad, then i don't know what is.

Nodin

Yes, there is the Harris/Callely factor.....

starbelgrade

I saw one session on Oireachtas Report recently, where members of the Seanad were debating whether or not the Seanad & it's members were relevant to Irish politics. If that's not a reason for shutting it down, I don't know what is?

Het-Field

No loss.

Since 2005 the HOL have had their powers incrementally subsumed by the British Supreme Court under the eponomous act.

Ireland's upper house is a rest home for failures, second raters, and cronies of the man in power.

It has no proper function, and is not worthy of taxpayers money.

brianthebard

If larger systematic issues of politics in this country aren't dealt with before these cuts are implemented then they will only be damaging. The loss of the seanad finally completes Dev's dream of making the Taoiseach the most powerful person in Ireland. As Nodin said cutting 20 td's will open things up to gerrymandering, with no real benefit for how business gets done in the Dail. Sounds like a vote grabber atm, but if implemented would almost guarantee that FF become permanent fixtures in government, and might not need a coalition partner again, or at least one so small as to have next to no influence.

0utshined

I agree with eoinbn, the Séanad shouldn't be abolished but it does need to be reformed. I think that a second house should exist but it needs more power, it's about checks and balances. As it stands where almost 20% of it's members are appointed by the Taoiseach it's open to abuse and "jobs for the boys".

IIRC the three senators mentioned above were all appointed by then Taoiseach.

Pride Fighter

I think that TD numbers should remain the same but with their wages reduced to 70k per annum with vouched expenses only. I believe in a proper bicameral legislature. The current seanad does not ensure this. It was once but DeValera hated its opposition to him and changed the constitution to allow 11 of his pals to help pass any bills. A seanad of 40 people, based on Euro constituency lines with 10 per constituency could be a good idea. Reduce the wages to 40-50k with vouched expenses. Give the seanad the power to block legislation for 2 years like the UK Lords. Perhaps have the seanad elections alongside local and European elections so that way it acts as a mid-term similar to what they have in America. If that was the case now a Labour/FG controlled seanad could block NAMA, which could only be good.

Thats my suggestion.

Badabing

I'd have 120-130 TD'S maximum. I think the Seanad could have an important role in the future, have it 80% elected by the people and 20% by appointment.

JonathanAnon

I would nearly vote FG on the "Get Rid Of The Seanad" issue alone, if it means getting rid of wasters like Eoghan Harris, Dan Boyle etc etc.. and being a purgatory for ex-TDs who were voted OUT by the electorate.

It would also send out the message to those privileged upper echelons of the public sector that it is no longer acceptable to get an exuberant wage just because you have "served your time" or because you have family in the right places.

G_R

id echo what other posters have said. In its current form the Seanad is pointless to be quite honest. It should be reformed tho, not abolished.

I think, it should have as much of a say in blocking/amending legislation etc etc as the Dail and there should be no Government Appointees. It should be directly elected, half way through the Dail term, so that if the Public is as unhappy with the government as if is now for example, we would be due a Seanad election around now and the opposition could be in contol of the Upper house and block stupid bills.

Dr. Baltar

One cannot put a price on democracy. Now, I know that the Seanad is rather pointless in this country given that it is almost always guaranteed a majority, but I still don't think it should be abolished.
Rather, it should be reformed.
The government should not be allowed to propose any senators first of all, and secondly, Seanad elections should be open to all citizens not just NUI graduates.
Also, the two year delay? What a ridiculous power! It should be something along the lines of 'a rejection by the Seanad means a referendum or permanent rejection until it is passed'.

As for the 20TDs cut? Which constituencies are going to be cut? Who is to say that X part of the country should have a lower amount of TDs and therefore a less say in the Dáil.

These proposals are not very thought through in my opninion. I would vote for reform of the Seanad but certainly not an abolition of that house.

dannym08 wrote: »

It should be directly elected, half way through the Dail term, so that if the Public is as unhappy with the government as if is now for example, we would be due a Seanad election around now and the opposition could be in contol of the Upper house and block stupid bills.

Also this!

jimmycrackcorm

I read people stating they'd rather have reform, but what for? Our laws are put into place in the Dail, what's the point of having the Seanad also?

G_R

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I read people stating they'd rather have reform, but what for? Our laws are put into place in the Dail, what's the point of having the Seanad also?

for checks and balances. Say FF have a majority in the Dail and they try to pass a ridiculous law, well there is no one to stop them. The president cant, he/she can only refer if it is unconstitutional, no matter how ridiculous. If the Seanad had power to block/amend laws then they could stop them.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

SeanW

Fully agree with the proposal.

Once again, Enda Kenny is bang on the money! :P

Long Onion

If Atricle 19 of the constitution was called on, Senators could be appointed from certain social groupings, thus ensuring that there is a forum for as many voices as possible, indeed this was how it was constituted prior to 1937, and this is why it was not to pouplar with tha Dail.

The problem with direct elections is that you will still get the make up of the house dominated by the main political parties, if the Seanad is to be overhauled, the approach to appointing senators should be apolitical as much as possible. The extent to which they can influence legislation should be extended.

This would all have to be done by constitutional referendum, and should be done immediately, if the referendum fails, we are all idiots and should emmigrate.

Agent Smith

Interesting Argument. I Lothe how the senate is used for failed politians (on all sides)

He might have a bit of trouble getting around article 18 & 19.

perhaps a list system might suit, Run it Alongside Dáil election.

As for reducing the number of TD's, if it weeds out people like Jackie Healey Rea, I've no problem with it. Would make for some interesting times in 4 seater Places...

bSlick

Fair play to kenny. The country is only the size of a medium city, we dont need all these twats in the senate doing sweet FA. We already have huge per capita representation with all the people in the Dail. There are way too many political administrators in this country for its size. The amount of councillors/tds/senators is a joke when you consider the entire country is about the 1/5 of the size of New York.

CJhaughey

Abolishing the Seanad is a fantastic idea, A holding house for failed politicians that can't find a real job is not what we should pay for.
That twat Senator Mark Daly is a prime example of why it should be abolished.

murphaph

dannym08 wrote: »

for checks and balances. Say FF have a majority in the Dail and they try to pass a ridiculous law, well there is no one to stop them. The president cant, he/she can only refer if it is unconstitutional, no matter how ridiculous. If the Seanad had power to block/amend laws then they could stop them.

But sure if the people want to elect FF then they have to accept FF policy. (or anyone's).

I would scrap the Seanad forthwith and implement PR List like Germany (and loads of other stable democracies). This removes the local aspect to a great degree and frees up TDs to legislate. The Seanad has singly failed to stop plenty of (what I consider) stupid laws so I'd go this way instead.

ninty9er

As it happens I had an indepth discussion on this lastnight, not the FG proposal, but the Seanad and PR list system.

The Seanad is a checks and balances measure and although it's not used, allows for the appointment of tecnocrats to Cabinet. That's not a fault of the Seanad, it's a fault of the government of the day. I'd be all for a 2 per county basis for the Seanad, however part of its setup is that it represents the interests of different sections of society not different areas of the country. What was mentioned in the circle I was in was getting the UL/DCU vote implemented since the legislative foundations have already been laid, however I think that gives an opportunity to make it directly elected.

The likes of Denis O'Brien, Fergal Quinn, Michael O'Leary etc is what we should be presented with, but that would mean giving every citizen a number of Seanad ballot papers...one for the Ag Panel, one for the Comm Panel, one for the Culture and Ed Panel etc...

Personally, I'd be for reforming the Presidency and giving that Office the powers of the Seanad, essentially, cutting out the middle man.

As for the number of TDs, as a member of a political party I'm not too sure the Dáil is overpopulated, overpopulated with deadwood on all sides maybe, but not in general for a legislative lower house. However the "what area of the country would like to lose a TD" as mentioned above just propagates the sh1te of TDs having pot holes fixed or sorting Mary Medical Card. TD are not there to serve their constituents, they are there to REPRESENT them in the legislative process.

Getting on to the second last point: Pay for ministers is going to be cut in the budget anyway, and like everyone else they're significantly down on take home anyway (27% for Junior Ministers) after the 10% pay cut they took last October, and only one of them knows what sort of cut they're looking at in December. Fair enough it's from a high base, but I wouldn't work 70,80,90 hours a week and sacrifice time with my family for the average industrial wage, there's NO incentive. There's room for more cuts, but lets not kid ourselves that it's an easy job.

Last point:
A list system may work in some long established democracies, but what would happen in Ireland is that the party with the most councillors fixing potholes will get the most votes in a constituency, regardless of what the policies are. It wouldn't solve any of the current problems we have.

donkey balls

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, there is the Harris/Callely factor.....

+ donnie roof rack cassidy another one who lost there seat in the last gen election and bertie puts him in to a cushy nbr.

although shane ross is very good he campaigned about getting rid of ntr on the m50 and he also highlighted the fas scandal

Mr.Micro

If they get rid of the Senate where will they put all the clowns who lose seats as TD's or those like Harris? The Board of Aer Lingus and other semi state bodies used to be where the loyal supporters were placed on big salaries and perks?

Jim236

Just to echo what some people have already said, I don't think the Seanad should be scrapped, it should be completely reformed. The current elitist system of certain seats being elected only by graduates of certain universities, and the Taoiseach appointing failed politicians, who can't get reelected, to the rest of the seats is a joke. Every seat in the Seanad should be elected by the public, this would make the Seanad more democratic and more accountable, while also getting rid of the public perception that its nothing more than a safehouse for failed politicians. It should also be given more powers as well.

ninty9er wrote: »

Personally, I'd be for reforming the Presidency and giving that Office the powers of the Seanad, essentially, cutting out the middle man.

I'm all for the President being given more powers because atm they can't do anything, and its a waste of hundreds of thousands of euro a year to keep the office. I think all restrictions on the President such as getting the consent of the government of the day to do things like leave the country, address the nation, represent the country abroad etc have to be removed. By having such restrictions in place, it contradicts the requirment of the President themselves to be impartial of any party, because they're effectively the puppet of the government of the day. Whatever the government says goes pretty much.

But your suggestion of giving the President the powers of the Seanad and scrapping the Seanad wouldn't work IMO because it would contradict the present requirement for the President to be impartial to all parties. How can you propose a certain ammendment or block a bill for reasons other than it being against the constitution without being biassed towards 1 particular ideology? Even if you remove that requirment of impartiality, what if the President holds the same views as the government of the day? Then you have all the power of the political institutions resting with 1 party. You're relying solely on the good will of the government to allow debate on bills, and to put in place any proposed ammendments suggested by the opposition. So in that sense theres definitely a role for the Seanad if it is given the proper powers it needs, and if the house is fully elected by the public and made completely accountable.

What I think should happen is the Seanad should be completely reformed, but so should the Office of President. Give both the Seanad and the President more powers, and remove the current restrictions on the President so that the office is completely independent of the government, and given a real and proper role.

rasper

Don't believe Kenny will do either as usual he's just trying to get the public opinion behind him, I'd prefer to see a stronger Seanad directly elected something that keep checks on the government , and take as many those glorified county councillors as possible out and lets be governed by people with a business outlook and the talent to use it

G_R

Jim236 wrote: »

Just to echo what some people have already said, I don't think the Seanad should be scrapped, it should be completely reformed. The current elitist system of certain seats being elected only by graduates of certain universities, and the Taoiseach appointing failed politicians, who can't get reelected, to the rest of the seats is a joke. Every seat in the Seanad should be elected by the public, this would make the Seanad more democratic and more accountable, while also getting rid of the public perception that its nothing more than a safehouse for failed politicians. It should also be given more powers as well.



I'm all for the President being given more powers because atm they can't do anything, and its a waste of hundreds of thousands of euro a year to keep the office. I think all restrictions on the President such as getting the consent of the government of the day to do things like leave the country, address the nation, represent the country abroad etc have to be removed. By having such restrictions in place, it contradicts the requirment of the President themselves to be impartial of any party, because they're effectively the puppet of the government of the day. Whatever the government says goes pretty much.

But your suggestion of giving the President the powers of the Seanad and scrapping the Seanad wouldn't work IMO because it would contradict the present requirement for the President to be impartial to all parties. How can you propose a certain ammendment or block a bill for reasons other than it being against the constitution without being biassed towards 1 particular ideology? Even if you remove that requirment of impartiality, what if the President holds the same views as the government of the day? Then you have all the power of the political institutions resting with 1 party. You're relying solely on the good will of the government to allow debate on bills, and to put in place any proposed ammendments suggested by the opposition. So in that sense theres definitely a role for the Seanad if it is given the proper powers it needs, and if the house is fully elected by the public and made completely accountable.

What I think should happen is the Seanad should be completely reformed, but so should the Office of President. Give both the Seanad and the President more powers, and remove the current restrictions on the President so that the office is completely independent of the government, and given a real and proper role.

this

daithicarr

they should reduce the number to 120 -130, from the current 166. New Zealand has 120.
Could we not have a partial List system, with say 80 locally elected, from redrawn constituency's, so no one can say those guys get more representation.
and 40 from a list system. hopefully then there Will be more from the list system that people will elect on perceived ability to run the country rather than how good they are for the local area.

as for the senate, i dont know enough about its running to comment on it, im aware it supposedly acts as a balance to the dail, maybe if it doesn't function as one it could be reformed in order that it fulfills this function and if not then got rid off.

Red Alert

I am totally against a list system for the lower house. Even in parties there are plenty of people who will not vote for a particular candidate for their own reasons, and they are entitled to do so. A list system would just allow a 'back door' for people like Eoghan Harris and his ilk.

The seanad in its current incarnation would be better off abolished. For example, why can I as a graduate of UCD elect a senator, despite the fact that I contribute little to the economy. Whereas say a plumber or electrician in full time employment and paying tax cannot? It's role as a law refinement outfit is also largely redundant since the committee system works quite well at this. Which leaves it as a scrapyard for failed personalities and mouthpieces for vocal minority interests. Time to close it down.

994

There's no need for a second house, plenty of countries do fine under a unicameral parliament - the two houses are a relic from the nobility/commoner distinction. What we really need is a Dáil that has some actual control over Taoiseach and cabinet - fat chance.

nesf

A list system can work but really we'd just see young TDs being given the boot and old party faithfuls being given seats etc.

Abolishing the Seanad is the wrong way to go, give it some teeth and open it to popular elections and make it a second house that can actually do something rather than it's present Dev set up where the Taioseach gets an automatic majority.

Long Onion

I do believe that the seanad can be important and relevant, if it is properly constructed. Having a general elaction from the public will not do this as we will get the same proportion of the political parties and end up with the same view as the Dail. The problem is that leaving aside Cowen's 11 and the Uni 6, the remainder are elected by circa 900 politicians (ex Dail members, ex-Seanad members, local county councillors etc.) If the Seanad were appointed by interest groups - farmers, employers, trade unions, students etc and given real power to halt or amend bills, we would have a genuine check and balance to the Dail.

This is what the constitution intended.

CJhaughey

daithicarr wrote: »

they should reduce the number to 120 -130, from the current 166. New Zealand has 120.

New Zealand doesn't have an upper house! They abolished it in 1951 because.... it was too expensive to run.

Euro_Kraut

Saying the Seanad should be abolished on account of Eoghan Harris is like saying the Dail should be abolished on account of Jackie Healy Rae.

There might be some good arguments fro abolishing the upper house but not liking certain people that currently sit there is not a very strong one.

nesf

Long Onion wrote: »

I do believe that the seanad can be important and relevant, if it is properly constructed. Having a general elaction from the public will not do this as we will get the same proportion of the political parties and end up with the same view as the Dail. The problem is that leaving aside Cowen's 11 and the Uni 6, the remainder are elected by circa 900 politicians (ex Dail members, ex-Seanad members, local county councillors etc.) If the Seanad were appointed by interest groups - farmers, employers, trade unions, students etc and given real power to halt or amend bills, we would have a genuine check and balance to the Dail.

Giving special interest groups, like farmers, unions and employers the ability to block law would be playing with fire. You'd just end up with a bunch of "single issue" politicians voting on very narrow lines.

Euro_Kraut

Pride Fighter wrote: »

. I believe in a proper bicameral legislature. The current seanad does not ensure this. It was once but DeValera hated its opposition to him and changed the constitution to allow 11 of his pals to help pass any bills.

Sorry, thats bull. De Valera did not have the power to change the consituation at a whim. It would have to have been put to the people.

In any case no such prosposal to ammended the consitution was ever made. See a list here.

squonk

I read a while back that the UK has about 650 MP's for a population of 50-60 Million, we have 166 for 4.5 million. You can do the maths yourselves! By that token we do seem overly represented.

As regards the Seanad, I wouldn't like to see it going, just reformed. It's a bit pointless to the common voter if only certain university graduates and politicians get to decide ti's makeup. I must read up on the electoral system we chose to adopt after formong the state but I'm guessing that quite a large part of it was transferred over from the UK system we were so used to dealing with, with PR adopted as a fairer system. While I agree with Enda Kenny, I don't think, as was said previously by other posters, that he's given the matter the thought it deserves.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Long Onion

nesf wrote: »

Giving special interest groups, like farmers, unions and employers the ability to block law would be playing with fire. You'd just end up with a bunch of "single issue" politicians voting on very narrow lines.

But you assume that they would all have the same common goal - the reality is that in these cases the employers choice would hold a different view than the union's so there may be a chance to arrive at a reasonable compromise. The idea of the Seanad is that it should be a place whereby proposed legislation could be debated in a meaningful way free from political interests. This would avoid the problems that arise with the Dail's construction which regularly sees the guillotining of bills and makes it impossible for the opposition to have any meaningful input into proposed legislation. Whilst it is true that the general election represents the view of the majority, there is always a sizeable minority who deserve at least a voice. This problem is compounded in the case of coalition governments.

The problem at the moment is that the Seanad is too politicised and has no teeth, in my view a reformed Seanad can be valuable as a check to the government. The costs of running it need not be huge if a union rep is already on the payroll of the union, they should continue to remain with the only extra payment from the Seanad being a contribution towards vouched expenses.

nesf

Long Onion wrote: »

But you assume that they would all have the same common goal - the reality is that in these cases the employers choice would hold a different view than the union's so there may be a chance to arrive at a reasonable compromise. The idea of the Seanad is that it should be a place whereby proposed legislation could be debated in a meaningful way free from political interests. This would avoid the problems that arise with the Dail's construction which regularly sees the guillotining of bills and makes it impossible for the opposition to have any meaningful input into proposed legislation. Whilst it is true that the general election represents the view of the majority, there is always a sizeable minority who deserve at least a voice. This problem is compounded in the case of coalition governments.

The problem at the moment is that the Seanad is too politicised and has no teeth, in my view a reformed Seanad can be valuable as a check to the government. The costs of running it need not be huge if a union rep is already on the payroll of the union, they should continue to remain with the only extra payment from the Seanad being a contribution towards vouched expenses.

I find it bizarre that you think a group of special interest politicians would create a situation which would be free from political interests, it wouldn't it'd just change which political interests would be at the forefront. Also, why would we want an employer's group's say on anything but employee law and taxation? Why would we want union views on education or science funding? What mandate would these groups have to hold sway on such issues outside their narrowly defined fields of interest? Never mind actually deciding which groups get a say and which don't which would open a whole separate can of worms.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, um half the majority would be cabinet ministers then?

bSlick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well obviously we couldn't have the same direct % representation as the UK as 46 is just too low to run the country. But around 70-90 would be grand. Seriously the majority of the guys in the dail do f*ck all and dont bother even turning up half the time. The country is very small - 70-90 is more than enough to run the country and provide adequate representation for the people.