how much will country save

jakdelad

how much will the irish taxpayer save
when we have the referendum and dump
the seanad,,,
i reckon at least 50 million a year
lets face it the senad is about as usefull
as a trapdoor in a canoe

RichardAnd

Do you have any idea what the seanad do or is this just a rant?

Delancey

jakdelad wrote: »

how much will the irish taxpayer save
when we have the referendum and dump
the seanad,,,
i reckon at least 50 million a year
lets face it the senad is about as usefull
as a trapdoor in a canoe

Most reports would seem to suggest a saving of 25 million a year - a drop in the ocean of course but nonetheless an importamt symbolic gesture in much the same way as the abolition of Garda Ministerial Drivers.

femur61

RichardAnd wrote: »

Do you have any idea what the seanad do or is this just a rant?

Apparatntly nothing, it has been noted recently that every law passed in the dail has never been challanged in the seanad first.

mise23

" The Australian state of Queensland had a Legislative Council before abolishing it in 1922. Prior to its abolition, members of the Legislative Council were not elected, with appointments made by the Governor of Queensland. The Labor Government of Ted Theodore made the necessary appointments, and on 27 October 1921, the Legislative Council voted itself out of existence. All other Australian states continue to have bicameral systems."

Had heard about this before and thought it was relevant.
Very impressed that they voted themselves out of a cushy job.
Don't know if this is possible in Ireland or, if it is possible, that the newly elected Seanad will have the balls to do it.

enda_4

Delancey wrote: »

Most reports would seem to suggest a saving of 25 million a year - a drop in the ocean of course but nonetheless an importamt symbolic gesture in much the same way as the abolition of Garda Ministerial Drivers.

But what about the newly elected Senators? Will they be entitled to severance or pension payments?

RichardAnd

femur61 wrote: »

Apparatntly nothing, it has been noted recently that every law passed in the dail has never been challanged in the seanad first.

I knew that but here's one for the mix. Wouldn't a motion to abolish the seanad actually have to be passed through the seanad first?

jakdelad

RichardAnd wrote: »

Do you have any idea what the seanad do or is this just a rant?

no we dont know what they do besides get expenses
perhaps you could enlighten me and the other 4 million here ...
be brief no rant

ninty9er

The Seanad is an important cog in the Irish democratic process. It does make changes to legislation, and tends to spend more time debating legislation than the Dáil. It may, in fact, be more conducive to the national interest to abolish the Dáil.

Check out the debates on the Harbours Bill and the Civil Partnership Bill. Please remember when checking this that people are elected to the Seanad on panels to represent specific areas, such as Agriculture. These need to change, but abolishing the Seanad does nothing more than giving an ineffective Dáil carte blanch to do whatever it wants without debate.

jakdelad

ninty9er wrote: »

The Seanad is an important cog in the Irish democratic process. It does make changes to legislation, and tends to spend more time debating legislation than the Dáil. It may, in fact, be more conducive to the national interest to abolish the Dáil.

Check out the debates on the Harbours Bill and the Civil Partnership Bill. Please remember when checking this that people are elected to the Seanad on panels to represent specific areas, such as Agriculture. These need to change, but abolishing the Seanad does nothing more than giving an ineffective Dáil carte blanch to do whatever it wants without debate.

i say lets dump the cog tighten up everyrthing else.
we re not losing a cancer cure here
its just a quango gilt edged

RichardAnd

jakdelad wrote: »

no we dont know what they do besides get expenses
perhaps you could enlighten me and the other 4 million here ...
be brief no rant

Ninety9er answered the question just as well as I could have. The Seanad is an upper house and thus, any legislation senn by the dail is also seen by them and can be edited if needs be. The role is quite like that of the house of lords in great britain and it's essentially one of power dissolution. In other words, it takes a little of the power away from the dail which can be a good thing.

In a nutshell, the Seanad is wired into the constitution and can't simply be pulled out without difficulty. Removal of the Seanad is not a simply thing, it will be difficult and, I dare say, very expensive.

And as to enlightening 4 million people, well I'd say many of those 4 million people actually do know what the Seanad does.

jakdelad

RichardAnd wrote: »

Ninety9er answered the question just as well as I could have. The Seanad is an upper house and thus, any legislation senn by the dail is also seen by them and can be edited if needs be. The role is quite like that of the house of lords in great britain and it's essentially one of power dissolution. In other words, it takes a little of the power away from the dail which can be a good thing.

In a nutshell, the Seanad is wired into the constitution and can't simply be pulled out without difficulty. Removal of the Seanad is not a simply thing, it will be difficult and, I dare say, very expensive.

And as to enlightening 4 million people, well I'd say many of those 4 million people actually do know what the Seanad does.

not to worry richardand
enda will provide us with an election this autum
and the public will let the seanad know once and for all what the general feeling is.. towards them
the sword of damocles hangs over the senate

andrew

If the Seanad is pointless, then why don't we give it more powers instead of abolishing it? A second house can be very useful, when it has the right powers.

meditraitor

I am not sure that giving power to an undemocratic political play thing is the right way forward.

andrew

meditraitor wrote: »

I am not sure that giving power to an undemocratic political play thing is the right way forward.

Why not? Just because it's less undemocratic than the Dail doesn't mean it's automatically bad. With reform, it doesn't have to be a 'political play thing,' or not elected by popular vote, if thats what you really would like to see.

meditraitor

andrew wrote: »

Why not? Just because it's less undemocratic than the Dail doesn't mean it's automatically bad.

A fair point, but I would be very fearful of giving power to a house that has political appointees ( the taoisach's picks for example) rather than ability based entrance requirements


The changes needed would be impossible to implement and then they probably wouldn't t offer any real advantage to the current political process,

Its a second rate house for second rate politicians, I think its time to empty the trash.

jakdelad

andrew wrote: »

Why not? Just because it's less undemocratic than the Dail doesn't mean it's automatically bad. With reform, it doesn't have to be a 'political play thing,' or not elected by popular vote, if thats what you really would like to see.

its to expensive, we dont want it , and like it or not its going to get the boot fainna fail style in the referendum
so long and dont let the door hit you in the seanad ar5e on the way out

the senad like ministerial mercs are yesterday

andrew

meditraitor wrote: »

A fair point, but I would be very fearful of giving power to a house that has political appointees ( the taoisach's picks for example) rather than ability based entrance requirements


The changes needed would be impossible to implement and then they probably wouldn't t offer any real advantage to the current political process,

Its a second rate house for second rate politicians, I think its time to empty the trash.

jakdelad wrote: »

its to expensive, we dont want it , and like it or not its going to get the boot fainna fail style in the referendum
so long and dont let the door hit you in the seanad ar5e on the way out

the senad like ministerial mercs are yesterday

Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I think if the government wanted they could reform the Seanad. But they just can't be bothered, and so they've taken the easy, populist option of abolishing it. Because everyone thinks it's useless, mainly because they don't know what it does, or what it's meant to do. So it seems to be a waste.

But imagine the potential! A second house filled with people who aren't beholden to Mary down the road, who bases her election decision on the basis that her TD got a ****ing passport for her daughter's leaving cert holiday. A house filled with experts in their field, economists, professors of law, environmentalists, leaders of trade and industry, and educators, none of whom have to be nominated by a party, or be tied by party politics. A group of smart people with the power to amend legislation, to hold Senatorial inquiries into the behavior of civil servants, to be the people who don't have to pander to Mary with her damn passport. It could potentially be a so, so useful and good.

As an example, imagine a senate on which economists sit, blocking or amending legislation which overheats the economy and creates a bubble by giving unnecessary tax breaks to businesses or individuals, and able to do so because they don't have to worry about pandering to the electorate. It'd be awesome.

But you and most others have been convinced that the Senate's crap and needs to be abolished. And as long as people think that, then the reform which you and other say is impossible to implement will remain impossible to implement.

RichardAnd

andrew wrote: »

If the Seanad is pointless, then why don't we give it more powers instead of abolishing it? A second house can be very useful, when it has the right powers.

I agree with this. I'm not so sure I like the idea of the decision making being in the hands of one house. Most democracies have an upper and a lower house for good reasons. The removal of the Seanad is a populist move and populism has done more damage than good.

flutered

ninty9er wrote: »

The Seanad is an important cog in the Irish democryprocess, but abolishing the Seanad does nothing more than giving an ineffective Dáil carte blanch to do whatever it wants without debate.

now if you consider the dail to be ineffective, what the hell does one call the seanad, please tell how the seanad discussed and voted on the bank bail out, also it has just dawned on me how the leader of the last seanad gave a rather stirring if not rather hash spiel on how it was oppertunist for young couples to purchase their first or second house, bang slap in the middle of a recession, the same leader ? who had his passport with the name senator then his first and second name on it in order to promote his acts ? in the good old us of a, a place where a senator has real clout not like this misfortunate isle of debt and political strokes.

Red Actor

andrew wrote: »

Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I think if the government wanted they could reform the Seanad. But they just can't be bothered, and so they've taken the easy, populist option of abolishing it. Because everyone thinks it's useless, mainly because they don't know what it does, or what it's meant to do. So it seems to be a waste.

But imagine the potential! A second house filled with people who aren't beholden to Mary down the road, who bases her election decision on the basis that her TD got a ****ing passport for her daughter's leaving cert holiday. A house filled with experts in their field, economists, professors of law, environmentalists, leaders of trade and industry, and educators, none of whom have to be nominated by a party, or be tied by party politics. A group of smart people with the power to amend legislation, to hold Senatorial inquiries into the behavior of civil servants, to be the people who don't have to pander to Mary with her damn passport. It could potentially be a so, so useful and good.

As an example, imagine a senate on which economists sit, blocking or amending legislation which overheats the economy and creates a bubble by giving unnecessary tax breaks to businesses or individuals, and able to do so because they don't have to worry about pandering to the electorate. It'd be awesome.

But you and most others have been convinced that the Senate's crap and needs to be abolished. And as long as people think that, then the reform which you and other say is impossible to implement will remain impossible to implement.

The problem with a senate full of economists is exactly that they are economists. Slaves to economic theory ignore the fact the we live in a society as well as an economy. Economists would at economic efficiencies - pensions are not a reward for labour and should be abolished; close all hospitals and let supply equal demand; abolish all child benfit and any other government interference which hampers the market. Anyway there would be the matter of how these would be (s)elected and would they work for the money on offer?

ninty9er

flutered wrote: »

now if you consider the dail to be ineffective, what the hell does one call the seanad, please tell how the seanad discussed and voted on the bank bail out, also it has just dawned on me how the leader of the last seanad gave a rather stirring if not rather hash spiel on how it was oppertunist for young couples to purchase their first or second house, bang slap in the middle of a recession, the same leader ? who had his passport with the name senator then his first and second name on it in order to promote his acts ? in the good old us of a, a place where a senator has real clout not like this misfortunate isle of debt and political strokes.

He was in the Dáil before that. Does that mean we should abolish the Dáil? to correct you, he didn't say it in the middle of a recession, he said it a number of years ago, we may not even have hit the middle yet.

The Seanad has great potential, to abolish it because people are ignorant of what it does is akin to overheating an economy leading to a property bubble and a banking collapse because it was popular.

We didn't have a banking collapse because the government wanted one, we had one as a consequence of the people electing a government on the basis of manifestos that would inevitably lead there.

Shane Ross, David Norris, Fergal Quinn, Ronan Mullen, Joe O'Toole; all independent people elected to the Seanad. Some Senators are independently wealthy and don't keep their salary or claim expenses.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a nonsensical, ignorant, populist rant.

Sand

The Seanad ought to be abolished - its far too corrupt to be redeemed and it sends an important signal to our bloated state and government that it has to justify itself. Also the idea that the Seanad ought to be the "good" house with the urbane and high minded debate unconciously or otherwise permits the Dail to be the "bad" house for the knuckle draggers to shout on about whose going to fill the potholes in their road.

That said, the abolion of the Seanad has to be a part of wider reform of the Dail so that transparency, accountability and checks are greatly increased to prevent the Government of the day ramming through legislation with no proper debate or evaluation. Id consider removal of the whip system through secret ballots in the Dail to be an important part of that, along with Ministers being barred from holding Dail seats, enforcing civil servants reporting lines are to the Dail, not to their Minister and so on. Simply abolishing the Seanad without the proper reforms of the Dail would be extremely foolish.

andrew

Red Actor wrote: »

The problem with a senate full of economists is exactly that they are economists. Slaves to economic theory ignore the fact the we live in a society as well as an economy. Economists would at economic efficiencies - pensions are not a reward for labour and should be abolished; close all hospitals and let supply equal demand; abolish all child benfit and any other government interference which hampers the market. Anyway there would be the matter of how these would be (s)elected and would they work for the money on offer?

I don't want a senate full of economists, I just used an economic example since that's what I know best. Also, what you said economists would want to do/would promote I can tell you is a pretty huge mischaracterisation; I can tell you now that that's not what economists want/think. But that's a discussion for the economics forum probably. I agree that the problem of selection is quite,well, a problem.

Sand wrote: »

The Seanad ought to be abolished - its far too corrupt to be redeemed and it sends an important signal to our bloated state and government that it has to justify itself. Also the idea that the Seanad ought to be the "good" house with the urbane and high minded debate unconciously or otherwise permits the Dail to be the "bad" house for the knuckle draggers to shout on about whose going to fill the potholes in their road.

That said, the abolion of the Seanad has to be a part of wider reform of the Dail so that transparency, accountability and checks are greatly increased to prevent the Government of the day ramming through legislation with no proper debate or evaluation. Id consider removal of the whip system through secret ballots in the Dail to be an important part of that, along with Ministers being barred from holding Dail seats, enforcing civil servants reporting lines are to the Dail, not to their Minister and so on. Simply abolishing the Seanad without the proper reforms of the Dail would be extremely foolish.

Surely the Seanad, if reformed, would be the perfect place to ensure that "accountability and checks are greatly increased to prevent the Government of the day ramming through legislation with no proper debate or evaluation."

RichardAnd

ninty9er wrote: »

He was in the Dáil before that. Does that mean we should abolish the Dáil? to correct you, he didn't say it in the middle of a recession, he said it a number of years ago, we may not even have hit the middle yet.

The Seanad has great potential, to abolish it because people are ignorant of what it does is akin to overheating an economy leading to a property bubble and a banking collapse because it was popular.

We didn't have a banking collapse because the government wanted one, we had one as a consequence of the people electing a government on the basis of manifestos that would inevitably lead there.

Shane Ross, David Norris, Fergal Quinn, Ronan Mullen, Joe O'Toole; all independent people elected to the Seanad. Some Senators are independently wealthy and don't keep their salary or claim expenses.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a nonsensical, ignorant, populist rant.

A great post. I would like to see the Seanad reformed such that it takes a more active hand in day to day politics rather than simply getting rid of it. Let's not forget that that if there was no Seanad, it would mean that any law would only have to go through one house before becoming canon, do we really want that?

The Seanad was modelled off the united states Senate which works very well for them. I think people are branding something they know very little about as corrupt and wasteful without thinking about the potential it might have or already has without them noticing. Is puttng more power in the hands of fewer people really such a prudent move? I don't think so.

Sand

andrew wrote: »

Surely the Seanad, if reformed, would be the perfect place to ensure that "accountability and checks are greatly increased to prevent the Government of the day ramming through legislation with no proper debate or evaluation."

No, the Dail is the perfect place to ensure that "accountability and checks are greatly increased to prevent the Government of the day ramming through legislation with no proper debate or evaluation."

As I said, presuming that the Seanad ought to be the "good" house, gives permission to the Dail to be the "feckless" house. Standards in the Dail ought to be raised, not subcontracted out to the Seanad.

andrew

Sand wrote: »

No, the Dail is the perfect place to ensure that "accountability and checks are greatly increased to prevent the Government of the day ramming through legislation with no proper debate or evaluation."

But you can't have a government that checks itself. Thats what checks and balances are. Independent entities checking the power of other independent entities. It's theoretically and practically impossible to reform the Dail such that it checks itself and holds itself accountable.

As I said, presuming that the Seanad ought to be the "good" house, gives permission to the Dail to be the "feckless" house. Standards in the Dail ought to be raised, not subcontracted out to the Seanad.

How so? If you have someone who checks your work and criticises it if it's bad, does that make you do work to a higher or lesser standard? I'd say higher. No one in the Dail is going to want the embarrassment of the Seanad saying that what the Dail is doing is wrong.

Sand

But you can't have a government that checks itself. Thats what checks and balances are. Independent entities checking the power of other independent entities. It's theoretically and practically impossible to reform the Dail such that it checks itself and holds itself accountable.

The Dail is not the government. The cabinet and the various departments are the government. The Dail is the legislature. It is the Dail that is supposed to act as the check on the government.

However, in Ireland, via the whip system, the Dail is completely and totally captured by the government and is merely a rubber stamp for decisions made inside the cabinet.

Hence the need for reform so that the Dail does its job and there is a clear division of power between the government and the Dail.

How so? If you have someone who checks your work and criticises it if it's bad, does that make you do work to a higher or lesser standard? I'd say higher. No one in the Dail is going to want the embarrassment of the Seanad saying that what the Dail is doing is wrong.

Theyve been stoic about it for the past 80-90 years.

andrew

Sand wrote: »

The Dail is not the government. The cabinet and the various departments are the government. The Dail is the legislature. It is the Dail that is supposed to act as the check on the government.

However, in Ireland, via the whip system, the Dail is completely and totally captured by the government and is merely a rubber stamp for decisions made inside the cabinet.

Hence the need for reform so that the Dail does its job and there is a clear division of power between the government and the Dail.

I know. In the Dail, what you've got is members of the executive who, by design, also have to be members of the legislature. So the separation of powers in this respect isn't really there; the legislative branch can't really check the executive. We both would rather the executive was checked somehow though, right? I don't think removing the whip system would achieve this. I think that it's too ingrained in each party, such that party members would still be bound by informal constraints not to vote against their party. This is aside from the fact that having the executive and legislative branch in the same house makes things checks inherently difficult anyway. If you reform the Seanad, though, and remove the necessity that members be nominated by a party, and give it more power, then you establish a branch of the legislature which may actually be able to check the executive. By virtue of the fact that it'd be outside the party system, it'd be outside the informal whip structure and so much more inclined to critcise the executive. In general, then, I think a reformed seanad would be much better at achieving the kind of executive we both want to see.

[/QUOTE]

Sand

In the Dail, what you've got is members of the executive who, by design, also have to be members of the legislature. So the separation of powers in this respect isn't really there; the legislative branch can't really check the executive

Which is why Id want a clear constitutional bar on anyone holding a Ministerial position whilst also holding a Dail seat, to clarify the seperation of powers. This would clear the way for Ministerial picks who are actually qualified and informed when it comes to their departments responsibilities, but who are responsible to the Dail.

I don't think removing the whip system would achieve this. I think that it's too ingrained in each party, such that party members would still be bound by informal constraints not to vote against their party.

Agreed - so to remove the whip system youd need a secret ballot. That way a TD could vote for or against legislation without fear of repercussions from his party. Otherwise, the party machinery could continue to exert informal influence over TDs.