Abolish Seanad

TheRosseforp

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Preserving our "democratic stance" by voting to perpetuate a completely undemocratic institution seems a bit odd to me.

Yes it could seem odd if somebody was unable to acknowledge the bigger picture. Removal of public representation is not in line with modern thinking. Your ire at the institution of the Seanad and its system does not refute this fact.

I agree that there is no meaningful reform going to happen. The 7 page document that was presented would have amounted to nothing had this been passed. Likewise, any blustering of reforming the Seanad now will more than likely prove fruitless.

However, further centralising our power is far more detrimental to our democratic stance and development than keeping a limited and flawed Seanad.

tayto lover

hmmm wrote: »

Enda doesn't care. He gets to still hand out very well paid Senate places to politicians who can't get elected, or to young FGers who want to make a name for themselves. The political "class" will be delighted tonight.

When I pick up my next payslip and see the tax I'm paying, I'll think of you.

You obviously missed the bit where the money saved if the Seanad was abolished would be diverted to the Dail. Nothing would be saved.

Think of yourself.

Harry Angstrom

Orion wrote: »

Reform of the Seanad doesn't need a Referendum. It can be reformed through legislation.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

martingriff

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes but as Pat Rabbitte said "that's what you tend to do during an election campaign" i.e. lie through your teeth.
The truth is always better than lies.

Cool just a question it you do not mind. Did you vote NO for

A. As you think they should be a upper house but reformed ( even thought I voted yes I see the merit) or

B. To give the government a bloody nose.

I voted yes not because I agreed with the government but because I think we do not need an upper house and through other ways it could be done with better cheques and balances

martingriff

Orion wrote: »

Reform of the Seanad doesn't need a Referendum. It can be reformed through legislation.

Yes it does the way the Seanad is and how its voted in is in the constitution so would need a new referendum

Harry Angstrom

TheRosseforp wrote: »

Yes it could seem odd if somebody was unable to acknowledge the bigger picture. Removal of public representation is not in line with modern thinking. Your ire at the institution of the Seanad and its system does not refute this fact.

I agree that there is no meaningful reform going to happen. The 7 page document that was presented would have amounted to nothing had this been passed. Likewise, any blustering of reforming the Seanad now will more than likely prove fruitless.

However, further centralising our power is far more detrimental to our democratic stance and development than keeping a limited and flawed Seanad.

Which pretty much proves my point that McDowell and the so-called Democracy Matters movement have done a very good job in hoodwinking the public into thinking that a No vote was a vote for reform.

martingriff

TheRosseforp wrote: »

Yes it could seem odd if somebody was unable to acknowledge the bigger picture. Removal of public representation is not in line with modern thinking. Your ire at the institution of the Seanad and its system does not refute this fact.

I agree that there is no meaningful reform going to happen. The 7 page document that was presented would have amounted to nothing had this been passed. Likewise, any blustering of reforming the Seanad now will more than likely prove fruitless.

However, further centralising our power is far more detrimental to our democratic stance and development than keeping a limited and flawed Seanad.

Since the Seanad has no real power how could there be a more centralising of power.

Harry Angstrom

martingriff wrote: »

Since the Seanad has no real power how could there be a more centralising of power.

Exactly. How can it be a "power grab" if there's no real power to grab?

hmmm

tayto lover wrote: »

You obviously missed the bit where the money saved if the Seanad was abolished would be diverted to the Dail.

60 senators no longer being required is a real saving of at least 6 million. Not to mention I wouldn't have to put up with seeing Bacik and Ronaaaaan Mullen on my TV which would have been priceless.

Pro Hoc Vice

martingriff wrote: »

Since the Seanad has no real power how could there be a more centralising of power.

One of the lies of this Referendum was the Seanad has no power, it has power, it can amend legislation, it's members sit on committees, the removal of a judge requires its approval. While it can do little in the area of real politics it still does have power, little power but still power. Just because it's only a small amount does not make it any less a power grab. Unlike backbenchers, senators are more free to oppose and promote other views.

TheRosseforp

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Which pretty much proves my point that McDowell and the so-called Democracy Matters movement have done a very good job in hoodwinking the public into thinking that a No vote was a vote for reform.

If you are going to highlight the descrepancies of the 'No' campaign it is only fair you present/acknowledge similar for the 'yes' side. (I could quite easily critique these but we would be here for the night) I agree that there were many populist views spouted on either side, unfortunately that is the way political issues are addressed in this country.

As I said, I voted 'no' not for reform, but to stagnate over concentration of power. I'm sure many voted yes/no under false ideals and pretenses but that is the unfortunate spin off of the ingrained ignorance and unawareness evident in our society.

martingriff wrote: »

Since the Seanad has no real power how could there be a more centralising of power.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Exactly. How can it be a "power grab" if there's no real power to grab?

It removes a platform for local and regional issues to be presented on a political scale. The inherent problem in our political structure is the lack of local and regional power. This is basic stuff to say the least, we haven't even touched the surface of the importance of competitive parliaments.

martingriff

infosys wrote: »

One of the lies of this Referendum was the Seanad has no power, it has power, it can amend legislation, it's members sit on committees, the removal of a judge requires its approval. While it can do little in the area of real politics it still does have power, little power but still power. Just because it's only a small amount does not make it any less a power grab. Unlike backbenchers, senators are more free to oppose and promote other views.

It cant amend legislation. It can offer an amendment that then has to go back to the dail for a vote that it can defeat, The ~Seanad can not stop legislation it can vote it down 3 times but then it goes through.

It can not remove a judge on its own. IT and the Dail together can.

Yes it can sit on committees but so what anyone in power can sit on them

hmmm

TheRosseforp wrote: »

It removes a platform for local and regional issues to be presented on a political scale.

Have you seen the muck that is the normal order of business for the Dail? It couldn't be more local and parochial. The biggest problem in our politics (imo) is too many politicians who spend too much time as overpaid social workers.

TheRosseforp

hmmm wrote: »

Have you seen the muck that is the normal order of business for the Dail? It couldn't be more local and parochial. The biggest problem in our politics (imo) is too many politicians who spend too much time as overpaid social workers.

You are failing to understand what local and regional power actually is. The fact they are talking about local issues in the Dáil instead of being dealt with by local councils and grassroots initiatives within regions is testament to my point. In an ad hoc way we agree, the Dáil has no business dealing with local issues 200km from Leinster House. Decentralisation is the panacea to this problem, removal of the Seanad is the total opposite.

Anybody who believes that less public representatives is a good thing is utterly clueless and oblivious to contemporary policies.

The incompetence of these representatives is a separate issue, not one which should directly pertain to abolition.

martingriff

TheRosseforp wrote: »

You are failing to understand what local and regional power actually is. The fact they are talking about local issues in the Dáil instead of being dealt with by local councils and grassroots initiatives within regions is testament to my point. In an ad hoc way we agree, the Dáil has no business dealing with local issues 200km from Leinster House. Decentralisation is the panacea to this problem, removal of the Seanad is the total opposite.

Anybody who believes that less public representatives is a good thing is utterly clueless and oblivious to contemporary policies.

The incompetence of these representatives is a separate issue, not one which should directly pertain to abolition.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO we don't need a Seanad then for that just reforms in local goverment. I AGREE

tayto lover

hmmm wrote: »

60 senators no longer being required is a real saving of at least 6 million. Not to mention I wouldn't have to put up with seeing Bacik and Ronaaaaan Mullen on my TV which would have been priceless.

The 6 million savings was to be diverted to the Dail.
Not a cent less tax would you have paid.

tayto lover

martingriff wrote: »

Cool just a question it you do not mind. Did you vote NO for

A. As you think they should be a upper house but reformed ( even thought I voted yes I see the merit) or

B. To give the government a bloody nose.

I voted yes not because I agreed with the government but because I think we do not need an upper house and through other ways it could be done with better cheques and balances

Answer -- A. Check yesterday's posts.

Harry Angstrom

tayto lover wrote: »

The 6 million savings was to be diverted to the Dail.
Not a cent less tax would you have paid.

What's a lot more important is that Mullen and Bacik would be gone from our TV screens and radiowaves forever

TheRosseforp

martingriff wrote: »

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO we don't need a Seanad then for that just reforms in local goverment. I AGREE

Yes, I've frequently stated that should more local and regional powers be delegated than I could adhere to the idea of abolishing the second house. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near such a process.

hmmm

TheRosseforp wrote: »

You are failing to understand what local and regional power actually is.

Sorry, I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Banjo String

hmmm wrote: »

When I pick up my next payslip and see the tax I'm paying, I'll think of you.

As already pointed out, you'd not have saved a bean on tax as the money was already earmarked.

There'd also be the issue of senators being forced into retirement. So a pension paid for.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

What's a lot more important is that Mullen and Bacik would be gone from our TV screens and radiowaves forever

As would Zappone,Crown,Quinn,Barrett, etc.
That would be a bad day for politics in this country!

hmmm

Banjo String wrote: »

As already pointed out, you'd not have saved a bean on tax as the money was already earmarked.

Just because it is "earmarked" doesn't mean it has to be spent. And just because the budget is x in one year, doesn't mean it has to remain the same the year after.

At least this way there was a chance of saving money. After this result, the money is absolutely gone out our pay packets and given to these windbags.

There'd also be the issue of senators being forced into retirement.

Now instead we're going to have an awful lot more Senators retirements to pay for well into the future.

H.J Simpson

Everybody who voted to keep the seanad deserve higher taxes or a cut in their welfare payment.

Pro Hoc Vice

H.J Simpson wrote: »

Everybody who voted to keep the seanad deserve higher taxes or a cut in their welfare payment.

Why only the people who voted to keep it? Do we not live in a democracy, or is it you only pay for what you agree with?

tayto lover

H.J Simpson wrote: »

Everybody who voted to keep the seanad deserve higher taxes or a cut in their welfare payment.

Is that you Enda?

Cork24

Higher taxes.

People like you need a tax on being a dump a@@ss

Read the full story, the government if this was voted in would be able to pass any law without having to go to the people of Ireland, the state will have full power no law could ever be hold up or put forward to the Irish courts,

Giving this government two much power is a bad thing

My name is URL

H.J Simpson wrote: »

Everybody who voted to keep the seanad deserve higher taxes or a cut in their welfare payment.

The rest of ye can cover the €25+ million cost for Kenny's failed ego trip :pac:

Maybe those that didn't bother their holes voting because they wrongly believed that abolition was a foregone conclusion should also fork up...

Banjo String

H.J Simpson wrote: »

Everybody who voted to keep the seanad deserve higher taxes or a cut in their welfare payment.

Very low turn out.

What about those that wanted it abolished but decided to watch coronation street instead?

They should have left the gaff.

Banjo String

hmmm wrote: »

Just because it is "earmarked" doesn't mean it has to be spent. And just because the budget is x in one year, doesn't mean it has to remain the same the year after.

Oh believe me. They'd have found something to spend it on. Silk scarves/ties. Luxury toilet roll. Christmas cards. Etc etc etc.

Spent/not spent, it was still earmarked. Meaning you'd (still) not have saved a cent in tax.

hmmm wrote: »

Now instead we're going to have an awful lot more Senators retirements to pay for well into the future.

Hopefully with reform, it can be senators the people put in by consent. Worthwhile business men and women.