Abolishment of the Seaned on the agenda for March

Eliot Rosewater

The Minister for Defence Tony Killen said yesterday that the government might consider holding a referendum to abolish the Seanad at the same time as the upcoming General Election.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0103/1224286668922.html


I think calls to abolish the Seanad are naive in the extreme, and I am rather disappointed that most/all parties are now calling for it, youth wings included.

The governmental system of Ireland severely lacks any restraints on the power of the Taoiseach who, for all intents and purposes, can do whatever he wishes to do. This has had negative consequences. During the latter boom years, Bertie Ahern and his government pushed through terribly unsustainable budgets, and there was nothing that could stop him. A strong second house could have put the brakes on him, or at least forced him to compromise, if only because they wouldn't have gotten the spoils from the populist policies.

If the Seanad goes we will be sealing Ireland's fate as a "democratic dictatorship", to steal a fellow Boardsie's phrase. I think it should be reformed, and reformed in such a way as to make it highly improbable that it could be controlled by the same party/coalition as the lower house. In my opinion most calls for abolishment exhibit exactly the worst of our political discourse: they are populist, not thought through whatsoever and damaging in the long run.

Biggins

I suspect the important bit in that newslink is the following: "The taoiseach’s right to nominate 11 members essentially guarantees a government majority"
...so supposing FF know (not too hard a guess!) that they are going to lose an election and become a minority party...
The last thing they want to do is give any incoming new party another opportunity to get one over on them!
They are not thinking of the people, (a) they are thinking of themselves and (b) on their way out the door they can claim "well it was us that brought in this change that the populist masses wanted - score one for us!"

FF do NOTHING unless there is a benefit to them, even if it is a side one or a sly one!
...But we're all supposed to be too stupid to notice these things or such possible tactics sometimes aren't we!

Orion

I agree with Eliot completely. I'm a grassroots member of the Labour party myself but I will have no hesitation actively campaigning against abolition of the Seanad. While the Taoiseach has nominees to the upper house the nature of the Seanad as a whole is less political than the Dail. The main purpose of it is to provide a check against a single-party majority government.

I would agree with wholesale reform of the Oireachtas but having a lower and upper house is essential to a democratic republic.

johnnyskeleton

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The Minister for Defence Tony Killen said yesterday that the government might consider holding a referendum to abolish the Seanad at the same time as the upcoming General Election.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0103/1224286668922.html


I think calls to abolish the Seanad are naive in the extreme, and I am rather disappointed that most/all parties are now calling for it, youth wings included.

The governmental system of Ireland severely lacks any restraints on the power of the Taoiseach who, for all intents and purposes, can do whatever he wishes to do. This has had negative consequences. During the latter boom years, Bertie Ahern and his government pushed through terribly unsustainable budgets, and there was nothing that could stop him. A strong second house could have put the brakes on him, or at least forced him to compromise, if only because they wouldn't have gotten the spoils from the populist policies.

If the Seanad goes we will be sealing Ireland's fate as a "democratic dictatorship", to steal a fellow Boardsie's phrase. I think it should be reformed, and reformed in such a way as to make it highly improbable that it could be controlled by the same party/coalition as the lower house. In my opinion most calls for abolishment exhibit exactly the worst of our political discourse: they are populist, not thought through whatsoever and damaging in the long run.

The reasons for removing the seanad is that it is seen as a big talking shop that costs a lot of money in terms of senadoir's pay and pensions. That could also be said to a certain extent of the Dail. I would be in favour of reducing the number in both houses, giving some more powers to the seanad e.g. to refer bills to the people or veto in default, to make binding amendments etc. The seanad should be either directly elected and have strong powers to act as checks and balances to the dail/government, or else they should be appointed but unpaid and have limited powers, such as referring bills. I would be in favour of the latter approach.

However, the brilliance of this move is that FG threw it out there, if the people were against it FG would take the hit, since it is now a popular opinion FF take it as their own and will no doubt take the credit for it at the upcoming election (punter: "Your party is all about feathering their own nests" FF candidate: "sure we abolished the seanad, that was our idea alright") and equally have deniability when it comes to dissenters (punter: "you got rid of the seanad, that's bad for democracy" FF candidate: "it was FG's idea, we didn't want to, honest".

In a previous thread I bemoaned the fact that if FG want to go to the election with any real policies, they would have to keep them hidden from FF until the election was imminent. Of course, FF lackies immediately pointed out that this means that FG would put their party before "national interest". You just can't win with FF and the willingness of the ordinary voter to be duped by them is incredible.

Manach

I'd agree with Biggins, that this seems an election ploy.
Whilst I'd agree with reform of the Seanad, that body is interwoven within the constitution, the 3 months running up to the election are scarcly time for reflection on possible long term change. Politic parties, IMHO, are the biggest threat to democracy, bi-cameral sittings are not a necessity given Ireland's population.

expectationlost

seeing they never bothered to even try to reform it i dont think the polticians can claim there nothing to do done but abolish it, this will just overshadowed other reforms ie powerful committees (which the seantors could then sit on)

Liam Byrne

expectationlost wrote: »

seeing they never bothered to even try to reform it i dont think the polticians can claim there nothing to do done but abolish it, this will just overshadowed other reforms ie powerful committees (which the seantors could then sit on)

The old "there is no alternative" lie as used for NAMA, Anglo & the bank pensions might be trotted out again.

Why actually do their jobs & evaluate the BEST option for the country when those - er - worked so well?

Against : we lose the likes of Shane Ross
For : we lose the likes of Eoghan Harris

Tough call on that trade-off alone.

amacachi

The governmental system of Ireland severely lacks any restraints on the power of the Taoiseach who, for all intents and purposes, can do whatever he wishes to do. This has had negative consequences.

And the Senate has done what to stop it? If it serves no purpose (as it is now) then get rid of it.

That or else give it teeth, but that won't happen any time soon.

Ren2k7

I say get rid of it. The Seanad serves no practical purpose in its present form. Democratic accountability can be much more effective by increasing the powers of dail oversight committees as well as introducing a requirement of important bills such as introducing the budget, treaties, etc be passed by super majority. For example, at least 75% of all deputies would be required to approve the passing of a budget.

proon4

If it means that RAT Harris gets fukked out Im all for it

Wide Road

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The old "there is no alternative" lie as used for NAMA, Anglo & the bank pensions might be trotted out again.

Why actually do their jobs & evaluate the BEST option for the country when those - er - worked so well?

Against : we lose the likes of Shane Ross
For : we lose the likes of Eoghan Harris

Tough call on that trade-off alone.

We will still have Shane in the paper.
Just remind me again, which paper?

gandalf

TBH if we can get the vote to abolish the Seanad at the same time as the General Election then I am all for it. If it gets passed then the new Government can concentrate totally on getting a list or partial list system implemented to break the grip of parish pump politics on the government in this country once and for all.

In its current form the Seanad serves no purpose and is a drain on resources. Very few of the Senators are of any worth at all to the country.

Wide Road

Wide Road wrote: »

We will still have Shane in the paper.
Just remind me again, which paper?

What does that have to do with anything?

bamboozle

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The old "there is no alternative" lie as used for NAMA, Anglo & the bank pensions might be trotted out again.

Why actually do their jobs & evaluate the BEST option for the country when those - er - worked so well?

Against : we lose the likes of Shane Ross
For : we lose the likes of Eoghan Harris

Tough call on that trade-off alone.

its been decades since the Seanad last rejected a Dail Bill. its a toothless body which exists to provide a salary to failed TD's and buddies of the govt, an expense we can do without.

gizmo555

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Against : we lose the likes of Shane Ross
For : we lose the likes of Eoghan Harris

Tough call on that trade-off alone.

I'll see your Shane Ross and raise you a Mary White and a Donie Cassidy :eek:

The Seanad is a waste of space and fundamentally undemocratic in its electoral process. To give one bizarre example from my own family, my wife has degrees from the NUI and TCD and so gets two votes for the Senate, whereas I have none because I went to the wrong college and I'm not a councillor. On the other hand, because of my involvement in the running of a professional body, I and my colleagues there can nominate up to nine candidates for election to the Industrial and Commercial panel, but can't actually vote for any of them!

There was talk from Senators of taking over the Natural History Museum on Merrion Street for a new chamber for them when it was closed for renovations after the staircase collapsed in it. It's fair to say the Museum does more good in providing a source of free education and enjoyment to the people on any given day it's open, than any good the Senate has done in the course of its whole useless existence.

Rocky1948

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The Minister for Defence Tony Killen said yesterday that the government might consider holding a referendum to abolish the Seanad at the same time as the upcoming General Election.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0103/1224286668922.html


I think calls to abolish the Seanad are naive in the extreme, and I am rather disappointed that most/all parties are now calling for it, youth wings included.

The governmental system of Ireland severely lacks any restraints on the power of the Taoiseach who, for all intents and purposes, can do whatever he wishes to do. This has had negative consequences. During the latter boom years, Bertie Ahern and his government pushed through terribly unsustainable budgets, and there was nothing that could stop him. A strong second house could have put the brakes on him, or at least forced him to compromise, if only because they wouldn't have gotten the spoils from the populist policies.

If the Seanad goes we will be sealing Ireland's fate as a "democratic dictatorship", to steal a fellow Boardsie's phrase. I think it should be reformed, and reformed in such a way as to make it highly improbable that it could be controlled by the same party/coalition as the lower house. In my opinion most calls for abolishment exhibit exactly the worst of our political discourse: they are populist, not thought through whatsoever and damaging in the long run.

What we need to do is create a strong First house to balance the power of the executive. There is no need for a second house and countless democracies that function far better than ours have no second house.

If you do as you say all you will do is paralysis the state. If the opposition decides to simply oppose everything as they probably will do, the government won't be able to get anything through.

At that I'd be worried Fianna Fail will try to rush this and **** it up like they **** up everything. I don't think there is enough time to put together the legalisation and I think there is a massive chance they will just mess it up and create constitutional problems. However being Fianna Fail I'd guess they'll never get around to it and we won't have a referendum anyway.

Liam Byrne

Wide Road wrote: »

We will still have Shane in the paper.
Just remind me again, which paper?

Why would I need to remind you when you only attempted the same pathetic tactic a few days ago?

I'd get that amnesia checked, if I were you - you must be hanging around Ahern & friends FAR too much if it's that contagious!

P. Breathnach

The idea that we should hold a referendum to abolish the Seanad at such short notice is simply impracticable.

The institution is tightly woven into the constitution of the state, and the number of changes to be drafted would be large. Some of those changes could be contentious, and in addition to that, we Irish have a record of treating non-contentious matters as contentious. For example, we can look at the fact that we have not yet held the referendum on Children's Rights; this is in large part due to the capacity of some groups to make it a contentious issue.

I suspect that much of our statute law might also need to be amended on the basis that it might have references to the Seanad.

I am not saying that such things should not be done: all I am saying is that the operation is technically a bit difficult, and time is needed to prepare for it.

If we were to be offered a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad, I can foresee another event that I would find unwelcome: the "pro-life" coalition would stalk the land again, demanding yet another referendum on the rights of the unborn.

On the question of whether we should abolish the Seanad, I am undecided. I agree that it does not perform very well -- but if that were a basis for its abolition, then we should also abolish the Dáil. I would like to see a good discussion of what the purpose of a second chamber should do, and see if it is worth having one (that would link with consideration of what the Dáil should be doing, because one of the purposes of a second house is to complement the work of the first house). If there is a persuasive case for maintaining the Seanad, then we should further consider how its membership is to be constituted; I suspect that most people outside the political parties do not think the present arrangement delivers the sort of representation we want.

Sulmac

As I've said many times on here before, I'm all for abolishing the Seanad - as long as there are substantial reforms made to the Dáil to give it real powers to legislate and scrutinise the government of the day.

Ireland is unique in Europe as it is the only small (in terms of area and population), unitary (as opposed to federal, like Switzerland or Austria) state with a second chamber. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Portugal and, further afield, New Zealand all have unicameral parliaments and still manage to function - I would argue that they do a better job with one chamber than we do with two.

Should we abolish the Seanad (and let's face it, a referendum is inevitable and now seems to have all-party support), we need to fundamentally reform the rest of the political system at national and local level.

First of all, reform of the Dáil committees. Dáil committees need to have some teeth (even if we don't abolish the Seanad). They also need to be free from government interference. One way that this can be done is by giving committee chairs to parties based on the D'Hondt system (based on the numbers they have in the Dáil) and random allocation of seats (although possibly allow for those with specialist skills to sit in the appropriate committee, e.g. a solicitor or barrister in Justice). Committees should have the power to determine their own agenda, enact legislation, review government legislation, and compel witnesses to attend enquiries and demand documents from any government body or department.

Secondly, a proper separation of powers needs to be introduced. No member of the cabinet should sit in the Dáil, but still be directly accountable to it. This happens in Norway and the Netherlands, where, if a member of Parliament is 'promoted' to cabinet they automatically sacrifice their seat (and are replaced by the next person in that party's list, but that's electoral reform). This has three main effects - first, the cabinet should (in theory anyway) have a more national focus as they are not tied to a constituency; second, it allows the government to bring in specialist outsiders with real skills in a given area (like the U.S. cabinet); and third, it reduces the ability of the government to dominate the Dáil. It is important that any member of the cabinet should be directly accountable to the Dáil, whether it be the chamber as a whole or the relevant committee - so 'question time' should definitely remain.

Next is reform of the electoral system. The number of TDs needs to be reduced, even if we don't change the system from PR-STV. I would suggest 100 TDs, as this is a nice round number. Next, we need some aspect of a list to bring in TDs with a national focus, whether it is a minority, half or a majority of TDs elected this way. My own preference would be for a national list system for electing all TDs (like in the Netherlands), whereby if a party gets 1% of the vote, they get one seat. However, I feel that this is unlikely due to people wanting 'our rep up in Dublin'. The most likely system would be some form of MMP (like in Germany or New Zealand, which combines FPTP with a list), although I would go further and have half of TDs elected by STV (in much larger constituencies) and the other half by a list to ensure proportionality. At the very least, if the system is not changed, we need much bigger constituencies - STV is most effective (in terms of proportionality) with more seats; every constituency should have at least 5 seats (not 3, which in rural areas means that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael usually dominate).

Following on from this, local government, as it stands, needs to be completely scrapped and replaced. We need a local government system that has real powers, crucially the power to raise its own revenue and not be dependent on central government for hand outs. A two-tier system of regions and municipalities (like most other European countries) would be best. The regions would be based around the cities/largest towns (like the current regions), while below them the municipalities would be based around towns (or in some areas, groups of islands or other geographic features) within the regions, similar to the District Councils in Northern Ireland. The regions and municipalities would be given their own responsibilities (e.g. regional roads, public transport, hospitals, tourism, water supply, etc. in the regions; local roads, primary and secondary education, libraries, swimming pools, primary health care, parks, etc. in the municipalities). Some areas (such as tertiary education) would be shared with national government but most of its focus would be on issues of national importance - justice, natural resources, international relations, the economy, etc. Local government would be able to raise their own revenue through tax, including property taxes and by taking a share of income tax and VAT raised in their area (or even, as in the Nordic countries, by being able to raise income tax within limits). Both regions and municipalities would have directly elected 'assemblies' as well as 'mayors' with real powers. The main effect of this is allowing national politicians to care about national issues. Got a pothole in your road? Go to the municipality. Problems with your social welfare application? Go to the regional government.

So, in short, I support the abolition of the Seanad - if we abolish most of the rest our political system and start again.

OhNoYouDidn't

bamboozle wrote: »

its been decades since the Seanad last rejected a Dail Bill. its a toothless body which exists to provide a salary to failed TD's and buddies of the govt, an expense we can do without.

So reform it.

The idea that we would fundamentally weaken democracy and hand the executive even more power to save a few quid is daft. We need MORE political accountability, not less.

But making Harris redundant is quite the carrot to vote yes.

JustinDee

You mention Norway in your example.
I'll just point out that politicians in Norway are ultimately unapproachable. There is no way for constituents to contact any local representitive. It is a setup where they are accountable to no-one else but other politicians except on election day.
In my experience anyway (I lived five years in Norway).

P. Breathnach

JustinDee wrote: »

You mention Norway in your example.
I'll just point out that politicians in Norway are ultimately unapproachable. There is no way for constituents to contact any local representitive. It is a setup where they are accountable to no-one else but other politicians except on election day.
In my experience anyway (I lived five years in Norway).

Does it make for a worse democracy?

ninty9er

Vest the powers of the Seanad in the President. For anything he or she wishes to challenge or further debate the Council of State must be convened (similar to before Christmas) It is mainly comprised of those retired from politics and gives the government of the day a chance to have its say too.

It gives legitimacy to the President, though it politicises the office.

JustinDee

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Does it make for a worse democracy?

If you like red-tape and barriers when trying to contact a local representitive then no.
However, in my experience (requesting assistance with my better half's illness), at the end of the day it certainly doesn't shine any lights over the system here.
As I said, the electorate has a say once every Statsminister term. Outside of that, forget it, take a number and get in queue.

As far as party politics and policy implementation goes, on the surface at least, there is a different attitude to Ireland. Parliamentary structure has little to do with this however.

ninty9er

But what would you need from a Norwegian MP, for example, that would require you to contact them?

bleg

They're getting rid of the Senate so it looks like they're implementing political change without implementing any at all.

ninty9er

bleg wrote: »

They're getting rid of the Senate so it looks like they're implementing political change without implementing any at all.

What's worse is that there are people out there who will vote in large numbers agreeing without actually seeing the consequences.

It suits the Dáil to have no Seanad, it doesn't suit anyone else.

http://www.politics.ie/fianna-fail/41470-fianna-fail-senators-bizarre-fillibuster-harbours-bill-3.html

imme

We're not the United States of America OP.
Our second house as you call it was never a 'stong second house' , it's not a counter weight to the Dail.

Please find me one piece of significant piece of legislation that originated in the Seanad in the last 20 years, even ever.

The place has become a talking shop, probably always was. A place for redundant politicians for the most part.

There are of course effective parliamentarians in there, but they're in the minority.

I like the idea of a second house, one that would offer opinions of a different Ireland from the Dail, but the Seanad is a sad political effort.

JustinDee

ninty9er wrote: »

But what would you need from a Norwegian MP, for example, that would require you to contact them?

Strange question.
Help from a representitive in beating through the red-tape of a kommune office during an urgent time.

Do you think that parliamentary ministers should be above contact from the electorate? They are representitives. Not icons.

ninty9er

JustinDee wrote: »

Strange question.
Help from a representitive in beating through the red-tape of a kommune office during an urgent time.

Do you think that parliamentary ministers should be above contact from the electorate? They are representitives. Not icons.

Well what you need then is a social worker, not an MP. That's what's broken with the Irish system.

People have become dependent on TDs to an extent where they think TDs are actually getting something for them. The reality is that if they could be arsed to spend a day or 2 hassling civil servants they'd get it anyway.

TDs are national legislators, not civil servant hasslers (in theory.)

P. Breathnach

JustinDee wrote: »

If you like red-tape and barriers when trying to contact a local representitive then no.
However, in my experience (requesting assistance with my better half's illness), at the end of the day it certainly doesn't shine any lights over the system here....

I'm never happy to hear of people in difficulty, and am sorry that you had a bad experience.

But I think it wrong that access to state services or support should be mediated by politicians. It distracts politicians from doing their work of representing people more generally, and as legislators; it can clog up administrative procedures; it can result in queue-jumping; it can be a form of petty corruption.

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The governmental system of Ireland severely lacks any restraints on the power of the Taoiseach who, for all intents and purposes, can do whatever he wishes to do. This has had negative consequences. During the latter boom years, Bertie Ahern and his government pushed through terribly unsustainable budgets, and there was nothing that could stop him. A strong second house could have put the brakes on him, or at least forced him to compromise, if only because they wouldn't have gotten the spoils from the populist policies.

Since when has Seanad Éireann ever, in its 88-year history, acted as a 'restraint' on the Dáil? Since when has it been anything other than an Irish version of the post-1911 British House of Lords in its historical origin and power limitations? It's little other than a jobs-for-the-boys club where failed politicians like Mary O'Rourke are dumped, paid a huge amount of money, and end up doing constituency work as senators in order to build their base up for the next general election. It's used blatantly to reward unstable long-established ranters and ravers like Eoghan Harris for coming out on national tv to support a taoiseach. €100,000 of taxpayers' money per annum to Eoghan fúcking Harris. Jesus wept.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If the Seanad goes we will be sealing Ireland's fate as a "democratic dictatorship", to steal a fellow Boardsie's phrase. I think it should be reformed, and reformed in such a way as to make it highly improbable that it could be controlled by the same party/coalition as the lower house. In my opinion most calls for abolishment exhibit exactly the worst of our political discourse: they are populist, not thought through whatsoever and damaging in the long run.

Notions of 'reform' of this jobs-for-the-boys club are naive and idealistic in the extreme and not based on how political patronage works in this state. There's nothing "populist" about my objections to this most parasitical institution. Nothing. So quit the patronising. Whatever point its expert panels might have had in the 1920s the Seanad is pointless in this regard ever since the committee system was developed. The defenders of this institution seem to be completely oblivious to the development of the committee system. Reform of that system makes infinitely more sense than reform of the Seanad. Even if the Seanad had a 'watchdog' role - and it doesn't - there are many other, more cost-effective ways of expanding watchdog powers on the Dáil. Unicameral legislatures work effectively in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Portugal, Malta and New Zealand, among many other states. An examination of these countries will show that bicameralism is merely a preference, not a necessity, to act as a watchdog role on parliament. What's your evidence that these unicameral legislatures are "populist, not thought through whatsoever and damaging in the long run"?

JustinDee

ninty9er wrote: »

Well what you need then is a social worker, not an MP. That's what's broken with the Irish system.

People have become dependent on TDs to an extent where they think TDs are actually getting something for them. The reality is that if they could be arsed to spend a day or 2 hassling civil servants they'd get it anyway.

TDs are national legislators, not civil servant hasslers (in theory.)

Whoa there!
You have absolutely no idea of the circumstances, what led up to or what this entailed. It was a life and death situation and resulted in a preventable death.
Nothing to bloody well do with "being arsed" or not.
Somebody used the Norwegian system as an example and I gave one of a side of its failings regarding accountability and approachability.

Heaven forbid that anyone should petition a representitive for representation, particularly when all other avenues have failed in a bureaucratic nightmare.

P. Breathnach

Rebelheart wrote: »

... Notions of 'reform' of this jobs-for-the-boys club are naive and idealistic in the extreme and not based on how political patronage works in this state. There's nothing "populist" about my objections to this most parasitical institution. Nothing....

Not so. The language you use is populist.

[I'm not making a smart-ass comment: the use of populist language tends to distort political discussion.]

dermot_sheehan

Seanad Eireann has contributed less to the national debate then the letter's page of the irish times and detracts from the authority of parliament.

No one really speaks in favour of the current setup, the defenders of the Seanad are generally political wonks who would like to see it reformed.

The problem is any reform reaches a major roadblock. It either has real powers to block legislation or it doesn't. If it does it blocks the work of the democratic lower house. If it doesn't it is a talking shop.

If it can block legislation, it would be illegitimate for it to do so unless it was elected in a democratic manner. In which case it emulates the lower house and is superfluous. There are no subnational polity's (like states) that need independent representation in an upper house as would be the case in a federal system.

New Zealand came to this conclusion and abolished it's upper house in the 1970's. Many other countries work fine without one, especially small unitarian countries like Ireland.

It's better to have one house of parliament that functions as an appropriate check on executive power and a place where national policy is debated, then to have two houses that do neither, the lower because each TD is busy with parochial issues, and the upper house because it has no power, no popular mandate, and the vast majority of its members want to be TDs so partake in the same parochialism as the lower house.

JustinDee

gabhain7 wrote: »

It's better to have one house of parliament that functions as an appropriate check on executive power and a place where national policy is debated, then to have two houses that do neither, the lower because each TD is busy with parochial issues, and the upper house because it has now power, popular mandate, and the vast majority of its members want to be TDs so partake in the same parochialism as the lower house.

I don't think it makes a difference.
Its not the structure of the political scope in Ireland that shapes the mindset of its incumbents.
The only effect of an abolished Senate is fiscal which would be great but I wouldn't expect any change in political mindset or deed.

Mike 1972

Was actually suprised to here theyre going for this. I know there had been a lot of calls for it but I can think of a many things for which there had been a lot of calls for taking years/decades to see the light of day (if ever).

Dunno why there havent been more calls for the presidency (at least in its current form) to face the chop as well ?

Not mad keen on the idea of cutting the number of TD's though -at least not without some serious reform of the voting system (Im thinking single nationwide constituency with a list system) A large number of representives means smaller parties/minorities have some chance of being heard.

Rebelheart

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The language you use is populist.

[I'm not making a smart-ass comment: the use of populist language tends to distort political discussion.]

So, how would you describe the likes of O'Rourke, Hayes, Cassidy and all the rest of those rejected, overfed parasites getting into the Seanad other than politicians looking after their own, aka jobs for the boys?

Laminations

I'm so cynical of FF that I've little doubt this will be done simply to remove it as a FG election promise.

OhNoYouDidn't

Rebelheart wrote: »

So, how would you describe the likes of O'Rourke, Hayes, Cassidy and all the rest of those rejected, overfed parasites getting into the Seanad other than politicians looking after their own, aka jobs for the boys?

But you are ignoring Norriss, Ross, Quinn etc who all make a valuable contribution.

I don't think anyone is saying the Seanad works as it should, what they are asking is abolishing the whole chamber a wise move? Logically, the same can be said for the Dail and all county councils.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The language you use is populist.

[I'm not making a smart-ass comment: the use of populist language tends to distort political discussion.]

So how about we all continue this discussion in Aramaic :rolleyes:

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But you are ignoring Norriss, Ross, Quinn etc who all make a valuable contribution.

I don't think anyone is saying the Seanad works as it should, what they are asking is abolishing the whole chamber a wise move? Logically, the same can be said for the Dail and all county councils.

The Dail (or an alternative) is necessary, so it can't be abolished. The most we can do is reform.
The Seanad (or an alternative) is not necessary as there is evidence of unicameral parliaments that function fine. So it can be abolished, and even at this we have alternatives (i.e. committees)

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

The Dail (or an alternative) is necessary, so it can't be abolished. The most we can do is reform.
The Seanad (or an alternative) is not necessary as there is evidence of unicameral parliaments that function fine. So it can be abolished, and even at this we have alternatives (i.e. committees)

But in the absence of those alternatives, why weaken the Parliment?

If there are alternatives, I am all for them. I have no particular attachment to the Seanad and it has been abolished before. But in the absence of a meaningful reform, I don't see any logic here that cannot be applied to all aspects of the Irish democratic system

Rocky1948

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But you are ignoring Norriss, Ross, Quinn etc who all make a valuable contribution.

I don't think anyone is saying the Seanad works as it should, what they are asking is abolishing the whole chamber a wise move? Logically, the same can be said for the Dail and all county councils.

They don't because one listens to them. Both of them would make a far greater impact if they had a weekly column in one of the national newspapers.

OhNoYouDidn't

Rocky1948 wrote: »

They don't because one listens to them. Both of them would make a far greater impact if they had a weekly column in one of the national newspapers.

As may be, but thats neither here nor there.

If we are to abolish one of the pillars of state, I would like another pillar there to take the slack. The last thing we need is less oversight of the government.

Again, all this could be used as logic to abolish the Dail.

later12

One question that I find intriguing and one which has not yet been asked is how abolition of Seanad Eireann could warp election results. Presumably many of the more high profile senators in that chamber, such as Shane Ross and David Norris, as well as up and coming Senators would increase the competition for seats in the General Election.

This could actually turn in Fianna Fail's favour. as Senate candidates could replace current, more unpopular TDs in the running for election. I am thinking particularly of popular FF senators like Mark Daly, Maria Corrigan andJames Carroll, although there are more examples. These senators are not generally seen in the same dim light as sitting Fianna Fail TDs are seen, although they may be seen as having some sort of electoral seniority over other candidates and this itself could help in their election to the Dail.

All I am saying is that one should be mindful that Fianna Fail are proposing this move, and it would be foolish to think that they are doing so without any thought given to how it might impact on them come election day.

As for reform of the Senate itself, I have to say I find some comments on here quite bizarre.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think it should be reformed, and reformed in such a way as to make it highly improbable that it could be controlled by the same party/coalition as the lower house.

First of all, why "highly improbable"? That would be a legislative disaster. It would result in a legislature totally impotent of the ability to take bold and decisive action, similar to the equivalent problem in the US. It would be worse for Ireland at a time of such economic upheaval: appropriate budgetary measures would fail, as would the implementation of other austerity measures. I don't see the point in reforming the Seanad if all you would have would be a constant tug of war between the two houses and nothing getting through.

Furthermore, I would be totally opposed to any chamber whose membership was not democratically elected or was distorted so as not to be made up of members of the governing party, having the ability to block or amend democratic legislation.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The institution is tightly woven into the constitution of the state, and the number of changes to be drafted would be large. Some of those changes could be contentious, and in addition to that, we Irish have a record of treating non-contentious matters as contentious. For example, we can look at the fact that we have not yet held the referendum on Children's Rights; this is in large part due to the capacity of some groups to make it a contentious issue.

I suspect that much of our statute law might also need to be amended on the basis that it might have references to the Seanad.

That's not actually a serious problem, the Senate has been abolished before (in 1935, if my basic leaving cert history serves me correctly?). We could simply, as was done then, introduce retrospective legislation which corrects any statutory references to Seanad Eireann by deflecting the Seanad's parliamentary facility back to the Dail. Or as another poster said, extend the Seanad's power to the President, and make her work for her salary. I really don't think that the above is our biggest problem with regards to abolition.

oscarBravo

later10 wrote: »

First of all, why "highly improbable"? That would be a legislative disaster. It would result in a legislature totally impotent of the ability to take bold and decisive action, similar to the equivalent problem in the US. It would be worse for Ireland at a time of such economic upheaval: appropriate budgetary measures would fail, as would the implementation of other austerity measures. I don't see the point in reforming the Seanad if all you would have would be a constant tug of war between the two houses and nothing getting through.

I disagree. One disadvantage of the current structure is that the opposition has the luxury of knowing that they can't make any difference whatsoever to the outcome of a Dáil vote. If they actually had the power to block legislation, they'd have to think more carefully about what to oppose and why.

This would also be a good think from the perspective of forcing the government to craft legislation that actually had a chance of gaining opposition approval. It would somewhat reduce the democratic dictatorship problem we currently have.


All that said, I'm vehemently opposed to the proposal to hold this referendum in March. As P. Breathnach has pointed out, we're talking about a pretty fundamental gutting of the constitution - does anyone seriously think that it could be done properly in the six or eight weeks available before the referendum bill would have to be published?

There are much, much bigger problems with the political structure of this country. If we're going to gut the constitution, we need to take the opportunity to do it properly, and fix those serious problems. Fiddling with the Seanad is precisely the right move for a government to make if it wants to take people's minds off the deep-rooted problems with the Dáil.

I noted in today's Times that there was little support in the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party for a reduction in the number of TDs. Well, colour me shocked to the core.

Eliot Rosewater

I think Sulmac's suggestions are very good, and I am now happy that I put a proviso in my OP (I said "In my opinion most calls for abolishment exhibit exactly the worst of our political discourse").

But the question worth asking: will the system get such reform? As far as I can see, if the Seanad is abolished that is simply that. The current Seanad, in all its mediocrity, is good solely because it has the potential to be reformed. If it goes we will probably be forever left with a unicameral parliament that the executive branch controls. Even proposals to introduce a list system are plagued by this fatal flaw.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Since when has Seanad Éireann ever, in its 88-year history, acted as a 'restraint' on the Dáil?

I made it quite clear in my OP that I want the Seanad reformed, not abolished, so I don't see why you are asking me such questions.

Laminations wrote: »

The Dail (or an alternative) is necessary, so it can't be abolished. The most we can do is reform.
The Seanad (or an alternative) is not necessary as there is evidence of unicameral parliaments that function fine. So it can be abolished, and even at this we have alternatives (i.e. committees)

Why is the Dail so necessary? Its core function, that of legislating, is invested in the hands of the cabinet. Besides the parish pump functions and the weak accountably of parliamentary debates, the Dail basically amounts to an electoral collage like that of the US Presidential Election. Once the Taoiseach is elected it serves no very important function. The debates in the Dail are of a generally poor standard, especially when compared to the debates in the House of Commons.

As regards your point that "there is evidence of unicameral parliaments that function fine": how do you define fine? From an external perspective one might have said that Ireland's parliamentary system worked "fine" during the boom, while all the while it was investing a disproportionate amount of power in Bertie Ahern, who then used that power irresponsibility.

Belfast

if we are are going to abolish the Seanad to save money,
why not abolish the the Dáil too.

The TDs could become and elector college to elect an Executive President instead

The Cabinet could be proposed by the President and voted on my the elector college.

TDs could then spend their time doing social welfare claims Etc working full time from their constituency offices so no travel expenses travelling to Dublin.

Cabinet members and Executive President must not be member of the elector college.

Legislation can be done by the Executive President directly.

Mr.Micro

I hope it does come to pass that the Seanad is abolished. When it peopled with the likes of Callelly and others like Harris appointed by the likes of Ahern then others who were rejected by the electorate, TD s waiting to regain their seats. A pointless, toothless crony populated drain on the public purse.

mgmt

later10 wrote: »

One question that I find intriguing and one which has not yet been asked is how abolition of Seanad Eireann could warp election results. Presumably many of the more high profile senators in that chamber, such as Shane Ross and David Norris, as well as up and coming Senators would increase the competition for seats in the General Election.

Thats why we can't stop at at the Seanad. Cutting the number of Dail seats to about 100 will increase the calibre of elected TDs.