Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abolish Seanad
Options
Comments
-
I don't know is this just a ploy by the government to stand by at least one of their promises in the last election.0
-
Give the only party supporting it is Fianna Fáil, that seems unlikely. It's certainly not the case for me. I'd like to see an expert upper house with no political allegiance.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Greens are also against the abolition as they were when this was originally proposed... Just with significantly less airtime :pac:0 -
Greens are also against the abolition as they were when this was originally proposed... Just with significantly less airtime :pac:
Greens will say anything to get airtime. There website's homepage has a video begging for money to rebuild :pac: Id rather the Seanad remain and the Greens disappear for good.0 -
-
Greens will say anything to get airtime. There website's homepage has a video begging for money to rebuild :pac: Id rather the Seanad remain and the Greens disappear for good.
In the long run, the only reason they'd disappear for good is the mainstreaming of environmental issues. But OT.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Greens will say anything to get airtime. There website's homepage has a video begging for money to rebuild :pac: Id rather the Seanad remain and the Greens disappear for good.
The Greens aren't going to go anywhere, same with the Socialists and Christian Conservatives in their various forms. The party may not continue to exist but the movement isn't going to disappear within our lifetimes most likely and will continue to either have its own political group or strongly influence other ones.0 -
Give the only party supporting it is Fianna Fáil, that seems unlikely. It's certainly not the case for me. I'd like to see an expert upper house with no political allegiance.
cordially,
Scofflaw
OK, maybe not you, but I think you're living in a dream world if you thought a sitting government would ever reform the Seanad in the way you suggest.0 -
It's an elitist house not dissimilar to the house of lords. It serves as a retirement home for Politicians who have been deemed not suitable for public office by the people of Ireland who left them unelected.
Art students get to vote them in with total disregard for higher qualified citizens with masters and PHDs from other insistutes such as DIT.
The place has no merit in a republic or democratic state.0 -
So abolish or reform, exactly the same arguments I hear from both sides Ted!0
-
For a reform to be effective it would have to be of the entire make up.
We would need to reform Leinster house. We as a nation are over presented. Fewer TDs, better definition and clearer breakdown between councillors and TDs. I get far to many letters in the door with both claiming responsibility for any upgrades done in the area.0 -
Advertisement
-
Who'd notice if it wasn't there..(apart from other politicians) ...
On the too much power in the ruling party's hands thing ??? They have that already... The Taoiseach can get whatever he wants through....
Yes they debate things and they've had a few good proposals but they're few and far between...Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
There is a list of consequences here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-second_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2013_(Ireland)#Consequential_changesIn her recent article in the Sunday Business Post Senator Zappone referred the the fact that members of the Seanad have tabled 529 amendments to 14 Bills that have been passed over the past two years. This figure was supplied by the Oireacthas Library and Research Service. Please see table of figures below. For the full Sunday Business Post article please click here
http://senatorkatherinezappone.ie/index.php/entry/list-of-amendments-made-by-the-seanad/statement/
529 amendments to 14 bills in the past 2 years seems quite significant to me though it would depend on what the amendments were obviously which it is harder to get details on.
Other than the above, abolishing the Seanad seems to put a lot more power into the dail from
http://referendum2013.ie
But given the government of the day usually has a majority in the Seanad and we have a whip system, it seems kind of pointless bringing these powers up...0 -
There's been some mention of the Appeal Court set-up on radio that the referendum will remove some existing safeguards, so I'll have to check the Commission handbook. One of the Gov't posters is annoying me with it's misrepresentation of the facts - the savings bit on Euro 20 million if the Seanad is scrapped - when it's obvious it'll probably be kept and spent in the Oireachtas budget.0
-
Why is it assumed tha a 'NO' vote compels reform?
Either way there will not be a reformed Senate.
I dont see less politicians as a bad thing.
Especially ones that have no usefull role.
My "yes" vote is secure.0 -
I get the feeling that most who want to retain an upper house want it reformed in such a way that the party they support will somehow gain more power out of it, not being happy with how the general election turns out, as if some reformed Seanad would not have voted for the bank bills, or austerity budgets of the last few years.
I can't agree. The 'ideal' reformed Seanad might operate less along traditional party lines. In the same way as the university senators have often been independent we might see members of say the agricultural panel coming from farming organisations rather than political parties.
In this way the Seanad would comprise of a broad range of expertise. The key reform would be to hold Dail and Seanad elections at the same time so that nobody could stand for both houses, or even extend it that nobody could move from one house to the other within say five years. This would eliminate the practice that has ruined the Seanad by turning it into a nursing home for retired politicians mixed with a kindergarten for aspiring ones. The Dail is for career politicians. The Seanad should be for a wide range of citizens who have something to contribute.0 -
I would have thought that back in 1987 he first got elected not because he was openly gay, but because he was literate - graduates may have more liberal back in the eighties, but that much more liberal.A minority of Senators there (generally, but not always University selected) represent views of a group who could not reasonably expect to get a TD elected. I'm thinking of the likes of David Norris being elected in a time where an openly gay TD candidate would barely get his deposit back. Due to the way the NUI/Trinity voting system works you tend to get more minority voices, this is both good and bad for you because you'll get both sides of the arguments being represented.
Ironically, this 'advantage' of the Seanad is Fascist in origin - it's classic corporatism - which is hardly a surprise, given when it was first thought up.
Given this it's not such a bad model; after all does it really make sense to be represented on the basis of where you live? Especially in this day and age of increased renting and mobility of labour - chances are we're going to move where we live far more often than we will change career in our lifetimes, after all.
Of course the Seanad hasn't changed all that much since the 1930's and some of the panels no longer reflect our modern society, let alone who's on them or how they choose their senators. It's an outdated mess.
All before one considers what the Seanad actually does, or is empowered to do; which is not much.
So overall, my feeling is that if reformed, the Seanad does have a positive role to play in our democracy. If redesigned to better represent all sectors of society, but from a corporatist angle, it would act as second line of democracy, coming from a radically different perspective, which could act as an important sanity check for the lower house.
But it's not going to get redesigned or reformed. Apart from the sheer scale of reform that would be needed, we've been talking about doing that for decades (there's been something like a dozen serious attempts at it), and little or nothing has resulted from it.
So, rather than bite the reform bullet, we've finally decided to bite the abolition one and give up on the house. I can see the logic there too, given past history, but I also can't help but think that this would be a missed opportunity, lead to a weaker democracy in the long term and indicative of laziness.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Ironically, this 'advantage' of the Seanad is Fascist in origin - it's classic corporatism - which is hardly a surprise, given when it was first thought up.
Not really, Its structure is inspired by Vatican ideas on vocationalism, it is a far cry from fascist Italys corporatism (Then again, Fascist Italy's Corporatism was a far cry from Fascist Italy's corporatism)Apart from the sheer scale of reform that would be needed, we've been talking about doing that for decades (there's been something like a dozen serious attempts at it), and little or nothing has resulted from it.
No there has not, there have been reports into reform which were then ignored by the Government, hardly a serious attempt.
Reforming the seanad would be quite a simple matter for a Government with the majority that this one has, there is a significant amount of reform that could be brought through by legislation, and further reform could be brought in through a referendum on Seanad Reform that would probably face as little opposition as the referendum to establish a court of appeal.0 -
I wouldn't agree, but then again, it's not like there's a lot between Catholic vocationalism and Fascist corporatism, is there? Many around that time certainly didn't think so.An Coilean wrote: »Not really, Its structure is inspired by Vatican ideas on vocationalism, it is a far cry from fascist Italys corporatism (Then again, Fascist Italy's Corporatism was a far cry from Fascist Italy's corporatism)
My mistake; when I said serious attempts, I should have specified that they were serious attempts to talk about it.No there has not, there have been reports into reform which were then ignored by the Government, hardly a serious attempt.
I don't think it would be so simple. You're talking almost a complete redesign, rather than simply reform: What panels would there be to appoint/elect senators? Who would represent those panels? How would they choose an appointee? What regulation would there be for them? How could a body be removed or added to such a panel? And that's all just off the top of my head.Reforming the seanad would be quite a simple matter for a Government with the majority that this one has, there is a significant amount of reform that could be brought through by legislation, and further reform could be brought in through a referendum on Seanad Reform that would probably face as little opposition as the referendum to establish a court of appeal.
Having a majority now would not be sufficient as the next government may well reverse or change such reforms - so you'd need some level of consensus for your reforms to survive the test of time. And that's before you put it to a referendum.
Real can of worms, IMHO.0 -
An interesting interview with Michael Martin on six one
http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0917/20439322-interview-fianna-fail-leader-micheal-martin/#page=2
Brian Dobson asks Martin about his party's support for abolishing the seanad in the FF manifesto.
Martin looks weak and confused throughout trying to deny the flipflop, but Dobbs is having none of it.
He then asks about his weak leadership.
What a car crash interview.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I would have thought that back in 1987 he first got elected not because he was openly gay, but because he was literate - graduates may have more liberal back in the eighties, but that much more liberal.
Ironically, this 'advantage' of the Seanad is Fascist in origin - it's classic corporatism - which is hardly a surprise, given when it was first thought up.
Given this it's not such a bad model; after all does it really make sense to be represented on the basis of where you live? Especially in this day and age of increased renting and mobility of labour - chances are we're going to move where we live far more often than we will change career in our lifetimes, after all.
Of course the Seanad hasn't changed all that much since the 1930's and some of the panels no longer reflect our modern society, let alone who's on them or how they choose their senators. It's an outdated mess.
All before one considers what the Seanad actually does, or is empowered to do; which is not much.
So overall, my feeling is that if reformed, the Seanad does have a positive role to play in our democracy. If redesigned to better represent all sectors of society, but from a corporatist angle, it would act as second line of democracy, coming from a radically different perspective, which could act as an important sanity check for the lower house.
But it's not going to get redesigned or reformed. Apart from the sheer scale of reform that would be needed, we've been talking about doing that for decades (there's been something like a dozen serious attempts at it), and little or nothing has resulted from it.
So, rather than bite the reform bullet, we've finally decided to bite the abolition one and give up on the house. I can see the logic there too, given past history, but I also can't help but think that this would be a missed opportunity, lead to a weaker democracy in the long term and indicative of laziness.
Broadly I agree with you. I think my point still stands though as I wasn't arguing for a continuation of the status quo.0 -
Advertisement
-
Isn't the Seanad actually based, in political theory, on classical ideas of republicanism, after Plato, as a formal 'solution' to the threat of 'mob rule'? In theory, upper houses are to act as a rational 'check' on democratic decisions by elected representatives who are at one remove from the pushing and shoving of politics. However, of course, upper houses were never about accountability per se but accountability to elites - i.e. a fudge to give the plebs the illusion of power?
By the time the Irish Constitution was drafted, and on the basis of the Westminster model plus the USA example (which were the fashion at the time), it made sense for Dev et al to go with the flow, albeit with modifications.
This is why I don't get Inda's claim that the Seanad was established to hold the executive to account. It was intended to act as a disinterested arbiter of legislation presented to it by whatever means for approval and referral to the President for promulgation or referral.
Certainly the Seanad doesn't perform this function effectively and the Dáil doesn't perform its functions effectively, either.
Whether the Seanad costs money or not is not the issue - the issue is whether it improves the quality of our governance, and by not discussing this, the phraseology of Fine Gael, and Enda Kenny (and tonight on Vinnie Brown, Leo Varadkar) reveals the party's Francoist leanings.
Anyway, the real debate must be the establishment of real local government, which every government since the foundation of the Republic (and mostly Fianna Fail) have undermined and weakened due to the dominant parties' lust for centralised power.
The FG campaign is fetishising the Nordic examples of unicameral legislatures. I would be very happy to abolish the Seanad if we had a real tier of local government, with local taxation powers, local legislating powers, local services.
The biggest flaw of all in FG's proposals, and all parties debating the issue really, is the unwillingness to address local government and local democracy.0 -
That would be corporatism, which we've been discussing. Plato argued for a form of government organized on the basis of function, which is recognised as an early form of the system.Isn't the Seanad actually based, in political theory, on classical ideas of republicanism, after Plato, as a formal 'solution' to the threat of 'mob rule'?
Actually, the other way around. For example, the English aristorcracy and monarch slowly lost power over time and increasingly it became the house of commons and not lords that called the shots. However, the latter was retained, despite the fact that it has very little power in reality.In theory, upper houses are to act as a rational 'check' on democratic decisions by elected representatives who are at one remove from the pushing and shoving of politics. However, of course, upper houses were never about accountability per se but accountability to elites - i.e. a fudge to give the plebs the illusion of power?
Bit of trivia; there are only two countries that constitutionally include the clergy as members of their parliament, in the World - the UK and Iran.
There were lot's of fashions at the time, including Fascism and Communism too, which influenced the Republic. Look at the architectural style of government buildings built at the time - you'll find the same in Rome.By the time the Irish Constitution was drafted, and on the basis of the Westminster model plus the USA example (which were the fashion at the time), it made sense for Dev et al to go with the flow, albeit with modifications.
The Seanad was established originally as a consolation prize to the Anglo-Irish ascendency and actually did have not insignificant powers to block the Dail. This first Seanad was abolished and replaced with a 'republican' one which we have today.This is why I don't get Inda's claim that the Seanad was established to hold the executive to account. It was intended to act as a disinterested arbiter of legislation presented to it by whatever means for approval and referral to the President for promulgation or referral.
Which particular Francoist beliefs are you citing? Or is this just one of those lazy parallels where totalitarianism equals fascism?Whether the Seanad costs money or not is not the issue - the issue is whether it improves the quality of our governance, and by not discussing this, the phraseology of Fine Gael, and Enda Kenny (and tonight on Vinnie Brown, Leo Varadkar) reveals the party's Francoist leanings.
Yes, more parish pumps and Michael Lowry's in power. Just what we need.Anyway, the real debate must be the establishment of real local government, which every government since the foundation of the Republic (and mostly Fianna Fail) have undermined and weakened due to the dominant parties' lust for centralised power.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Yes, more parish pumps and Michael Lowry's in power. Just what we need.
Parish pump politics has its function, filling the potholes is an issue that should be delt with, just not by national polititions, one of the central reasons that people get elected to the Dáil on local issues is that local government is not robust enough to deal with them. How often have we seen campaign groups for local issues having to go all the way to Government ministers to sort an issue? Why, because Government ministers controle the purse strings.
And this is porpagated because it suits polititions to be an interface between the people and the system, they want to be able to say 'vote for me and I will fix x,y and z for you'0 -
An Coilean wrote: »And this is porpagated because it suits polititions to be an interface between the people and the system, they want to be able to say 'vote for me and I will fix x,y and z for you'
And often they do fix it, the more successful ones anyway, and so get re-elected. They come canvassing on their 'record', which includes asking Dail questions on behalf of an individual or small group (which must waste far more time and money getting answered than the Seanad costs) and getting local issues sorted. They never mention legislation at all, I presume because they take no part in it.
The big carrot for voters is that if they make the 'right' choice they might hit the real jackpot and get a Minister in their constituency because everybody knows that they are the people who can 'deliver' the real goodies - roads, leisure centres and factories.0 -
Has anyone seen the Labour posters that are after appearing around Dublin
"One People
One Parliment
One Vote"
All that's missing is "One leader" =D0 -
The Corinthian wrote:Yes, more parish pumps and Michael Lowry's in power. Just what we need.
My point is: leave the parish pump in the parish. What we have is a system in which the parish pump is placed in Leinster House's courtyard.
I worked on this issue at policy level around the time of Gormley's aborted reforms. I've thought long and hard about local government. It's my considered opinion that power and greater functions must be devolved to local level and that power and functions must be accountable to people at that level. But only functions that make sense to devolve in order for that power and functions to be genuinely accountable to those who are the beneficiaries of those functions. It is most natural for people to engage in the democratic process on a smaller scale, but the centralising forces of our politics find this threatening.
It simply does not make sense for a national legislature to be concerning itself with potholes. A national legislature concerns itself with setting and enforcing laws, standards and resources to ensure potholes are dealt with. Local governments deal with the potholes, and if they don't they can be more easily be held to account at local level by citizens.
Clearly, not all local governments have the same demographics, economic endowments, revenue-raising capacities, etc. This is why a secondary function of national government is to balance out the inequalities between local governments in the national interest.
However, were a real system of local government to be introduced, it may very well be that some local governments do well - directing local economic development, improving services, etc. - and some may not due to political forces prevailing in particular territories.
But this would be democracy: if democratic politics were to take place at the best possible level (remember Athenian democracy, for its deep flaws by modern standards, worked as it did because of its smaller scale), bad situations arising from the 'parish pump' as you call it would improve because democratic accountability would kick in. You've got to break a few eggs to make an omlette, as it were.
And before the Mods open up a can of whoop-ass for being OT, I believe this debate is central to the Seanad debate, but we're not allowed to discuss it. Enda will not discuss it. They may claim that Big Phil has implemented 'the biggest reform of local government since the foundation of the state'. It isn't. His document (not legislation) did have some positive points but it added up to more centralisation of power by the removal of some Town Councils (while some were colonial left-overs, no effort was made to address this on a rational basis) and the dogged resistance to granting Local Authorities power over local taxation (except for a few tweaks hear and there).
The Seanad referendum (if passed), failed Dáil reform and the refusal to reform Local Government leads one to a very terrifying outcome: an immense concentration of political power in the hands of the Executive.
The cruel irony of your comment is that while I agree we cannot have more Lowrys, Mattie McGraths, etc., the people are voting for localism through the election of national representatives who spend over 60% of their time dealing with local problems like potholes or medical cards rather than engaging in their Constitutional duty: to represent localities on national-level issues. That's poisoning our national governance. My response to you would be, as I said, yes, leave the parish pump in the parish. That's where local politics are most meaningful, where you get most participation and where it's most effective.
If we really got that, then we may not need a Seanad because the Dáil would have to function differently. Or we even dare to be bold and invent a new model for a third tier that can more effectively scrutinise legislation prior to promulgation. We're supposed to be a 'creative economy' now, y'know? Problem is: Ireland stifles creativity.
We should be in the streets about this. But, y'know, This is Ireland.0 -
My point is: leave the parish pump in the parish. What we have is a system in which the parish pump is placed in Leinster House's courtyard.
I worked on this issue at policy level around the time of Gormley's aborted reforms. I've thought long and hard about local government. It's my considered opinion that power and greater functions must be devolved to local level and that power and functions must be accountable to people at that level. But only functions that make sense to devolve in order for that power and functions to be genuinely accountable to those who are the beneficiaries of those functions. It is most natural for people to engage in the democratic process on a smaller scale, but the centralising forces of our politics find this threatening.
It simply does not make sense for a national legislature to be concerning itself with potholes. A national legislature concerns itself with setting and enforcing laws, standards and resources to ensure potholes are dealt with. Local governments deal with the potholes, and if they don't they can be more easily be held to account at local level by citizens.
Clearly, not all local governments have the same demographics, economic endowments, revenue-raising capacities, etc. This is why a secondary function of national government is to balance out the inequalities between local governments in the national interest.
However, were a real system of local government to be introduced, it may very well be that some local governments do well - directing local economic development, improving services, etc. - and some may not due to political forces prevailing in particular territories.
But this would be democracy: if democratic politics were to take place at the best possible level (remember Athenian democracy, for its deep flaws by modern standards, worked as it did because of its smaller scale), bad situations arising from the 'parish pump' as you call it would improve because democratic accountability would kick in. You've got to break a few eggs to make an omlette, as it were.
And before the Mods open up a can of whoop-ass for being OT, I believe this debate is central to the Seanad debate, but we're not allowed to discuss it. Enda will not discuss it. They may claim that Big Phil has implemented 'the biggest reform of local government since the foundation of the state'. It isn't. His document (not legislation) did have some positive points but it added up to more centralisation of power by the removal of some Town Councils (while some were colonial left-overs, no effort was made to address this on a rational basis) and the dogged resistance to granting Local Authorities power over local taxation (except for a few tweaks hear and there).
The Seanad referendum (if passed), failed Dáil reform and the refusal to reform Local Government leads one to a very terrifying outcome: an immense concentration of political power in the hands of the Executive.
The cruel irony of your comment is that while I agree we cannot have more Lowrys, Mattie McGraths, etc., the people are voting for localism through the election of national representatives who spend over 60% of their time dealing with local problems like potholes or medical cards rather than engaging in their Constitutional duty: to represent localities on national-level issues. That's poisoning our national governance. My response to you would be, as I said, yes, leave the parish pump in the parish. That's where local politics are most meaningful, where you get most participation and where it's most effective.
If we really got that, then we may not need a Seanad because the Dáil would have to function differently. Or we even dare to be bold and invent a new model for a third tier that can more effectively scrutinise legislation prior to promulgation. We're supposed to be a 'creative economy' now, y'know? Problem is: Ireland stifles creativity.
We should be in the streets about this. But, y'know, This is Ireland.
Good post.
It would have been better if the government had considered some real reforms in Local Government.
Town COuncils should have been reinforced rather than scrapped.0 -
-
I guess it's Labour's way, or it's Nuremberg's way.
:pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
Reading up on the referendum the most important change I think would be the loss of the opportunity to have a referendum on important legislation.Referral of Bills to the People
The Constitution provides that Bills may be referred to the people for a referendum if a majority of members of the Seanad and not less than one third of the members of the Dáil ask the President not to sign a Bill because it contains a proposal of such national importance that the decision to have such a law should be made by the people. The President may agree or disagree with this request.
If this referendum is passed:
This possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed from the Constitution.
http://referendum2013.ie/the-seanad-other-changes/
But overall the Seanad has served no useful purpose since its inception. I think it creates cronyism and having too many politicians is a bad thing. I think I will vote YES but I am open to changing my mind.0
Advertisement