Abolition of the Senate

Pete2012

Did Kenny suggest this in his state of the nation address to us?

If so does anyone know if it will happen or what steps they need/should be taking for this to happen?

Ellis Dee

Yes, I seem to recall he said the Government would initiate a move to abolish the Seanad. That will require a referendum and will not be such a simple matter as some might think. For example, it will affect the process by which presidential candidates are nominated (20 members of the Oireachtas), etc.

On the whole, though, it's a good idea to get rid of that ridiculous and anachronistic talking shop. Its few members who are not total wastes of space will surely find some other channel through which to contribute to our country and society.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

gandalf

A referendum is needed to abolish the Seanad. I believe they plan on holding this next year.

sdanseo

Senate Seanad.

I think it's a bad road to go down to abolish the upper house of parliament and leave ourselves with only one house. Having two brings a little more transaprency because things get discussed and problems get identified in the Seanad that wouldn't nessecarily be the case were there a single-chamber government.

I think there has been a huge amount of people going to town on the idea of slashing the public sector, government and state expenditure in general. The private sector, for the most part, made this mess and it sickens me to see the public sector having to mop it up. Yes our crisis was made worse by the property crash and the pathetic excuse for a government during that time, but the crisis as a whole would certainly not have been averted had that not been the case.

ads20101

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Yes, I seem to recall he said the Government would initiate a move to abolish the Seanad. That will require a referendum and will not be such a simple matter as some might think. For example, it will affect the process by which presidential candidates are nominated (20 members of the Oireachtas), etc.

On the whole, though, it's a good idea to get rid of that ridiculous and anachronistic talking shop. Its few members who are not total wastes of space will surely find some other channel through which to contribute to our country and society.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

In essence I agree with what you have stated, but in most western parliaments a second chamber or house is used. The power and usage of a second parliamentary house varies accross countries but one common use appears to be democratic check and balance on constitutional or statute legislation.

RichardAnd

sdeire wrote: »

Senate Seanad.

I think it's a bad road to go down to abolish the upper house of parliament and leave ourselves with only one house. Having two brings a little more transaprency because things get discussed and problems get identified in the Seanad that wouldn't nessecarily be the case were there a single-chamber government.

I agree. I would rather see the seanad reformed so that it had a more active role to play. Most democratic states have a two house system for the reason of power sharing and I don't think we should do away with that simply to satisfy a populist agenda.

Fromthetrees

Why not just make it's representatives more relevant, it still is an instrument of democracy despite it not having any real power, I mean the dail basically doesn't have any power either because of the whip system. Why not give it nominal powers while getting rid of the whip system in the dail.
Why not put a representative in from the main charities, why not find a way to get some economists in there, a member from all the main sporting associations, a member from each local authority should be elected, a representative from each church, find a way to invite a few people from both sides of the north down, let the people elect senators from each county at the European elections, a member of The Bar Council, someone from The Food Safety Authority, a few student union representatives, ect. ect. ect., why not make it as independent a body as possible with oversight of the dail.


If we are to abolish it we need to reform the entire political system first from local councils, having direct democracy and having less power in the dail just concentrated to the cabinet, just getting rid without any other real improvement isn't the answer.

Pete2012

Yes, perhaps you are right fromthetrees. That suggestion or it to be abolished. If we were to go with your suggestion fromthetrees an independent body that was "used" would be a good alternative to the present situation where we have some politicians who were not elected put into the senate instead by the government. It's a disgrace. What exactly do they do? and who are they accountable to??? It's things like this that needs to be cut as opposed to frontline workers.

sdanseo

What perhaps I didn't make clear in my post above, and I think needs to be stated, is my frustration at the reasons for the potential abolition of half the Oireachtas - which is Enda playing straight into the hands of angry people who have less money and would sell their Grannies for a return to prosperity - or failing that, a parliamentary scapegoat.

Pete_Cavan

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Why not put a representative in from the main charities, why not find a way to get some economists in there, a member from all the main sporting associations, a member from each local authority should be elected, a representative from each church, find a way to invite a few people from both sides of the north down, let the people elect senators from each county at the European elections, a member of The Bar Council, someone from The Food Safety Authority, a few student union representatives, ect. ect. ect., why not make it as independent a body as possible with oversight of the dail.

What we need is something like this, although I would be worried about giving too many lobby groups a platform on which to promote their own vested interests. Careful consideration should be given to who exactly should be represented and most it should be one Senator for each group. Atm, the Seanad is treated as a pit stop for prospective TDs and to give them something extra to put on their CV for the next General Election and this needs to change.

Perhaps the Seanad should be appointed two years after a General Election instead of at the same time. This would help maintain the independence of the Seanad because it would mean that for the first two years of their term, a new government would not have the upper house stuffed with their supporters. It would also put those hopeful of becoming a TD in the near future off becoming a Senator in the meantime because they will be in the middle of their term as a Senator when the next GE rolls round.

Irish Steve

If the Seanad was truly representative of the people. instead of being stuffed full of academics, former or intending TD's, political lackeys, and too many people from teaching or the legal profession, then it might be a more worthwhile institution. Some form of check and balance is needed to make sure that the other house doesn't get ideas above it's station, there has to be a good reason why the American system still has 2 houses, and they have liberal gun laws.

The idea of staggering the elections is a good one, as long as the way that the members are elected is also changed to do away with the bias in favour of things like university panels and the like, that's an eliteist throwback that is no longer appropriate, as is the ability of the government in power to stuff a significant number of unelected representatives in there.

Change will have to come, but the fear is that the change will be too far reaching, and once done, it may be hard to undo it, if the only house that can make the change goes down a road that is not in the interest of the nation as a whole, we might discover that not having a Seanad is not such a good idea. The one thing that might be a good balance is if the powers of the president are increased to allow the office to reject legislation for a wider range of reasons, not only that of being unconstitutional.

Time will tell, given the ferocious mess that things are in, anything could happen, good bad or indifferent. I would have to say that in many respects, I am so dissillusioned with all aspects of politics in this country, both at a national and local level, I'm not sure I really care what they do, any changes they make now are going to take so long to have any real effect, by the time they do, I'm probably going to be past caring.

I'm 60 now, and not altogether joking when I say that I doubt that many if any of the current massive issues will be sorted in my lifetime, and my parents are in their late 80's, so that gives an idea of just how bad I think things really are, even though they're not admitting it will take that long yet.

Not that long ago, I had hopes, and dreams, and still some ambitions, and expectations that some of them would happen. No more, I'm not even sure where the money to provide enough heating for the house will come from to enable my daughter to visit with our new grandson, it's reached that stage, and there's worse, far worse to come, because the idiots in charge of the asylum think there's a bottomless money pot out here that they can keep tapping for ever.

I've paid VHI for years, and now I might be about to really need it, it's had to go, along with a lot of other things, and now Phil Hogan is coming back for even more, which in our case will be a simple reduction in our Sw payments, unless a miracle happens in the next few weeks and some real work turns up, and at my age, being able to get that work comes only if the inbuilt ageist and paper qualifications hurdles can be overcome. When I did my training, if you didn't pass the course, you were out of a job, but now, if you don't have paper qualifications several miles long, don't even bother to submit a CV, it will be a waste of paper.

If I had my way, all politicians would have to be employed and get their pensions etc on the same basis as the way they treat the self employed in this country. Things like a pension after 2 years service, and all the other things like obscene allowances for retired ministers and the like would be gone tomorrow, and not return.

Then maybe, if they saw that happen, we might get some real reform, instead of the fiddling while Rome burns scenario that's happening at the moment. Politicians are the first to get increases, which they vote on themselves, and often the last to suffer the cuts, no surprise there.

Dissillusioned? Too damn right I am, because I don't see any real intent from any of them to really reform the underlying systems that have caused so many of the problems we are now well and truly caught up in for probably the next generation.

I'd love to see a real future for my new grandson, but if I am brutally honest, I don't see it happening unless there is something close to a bloodless revolution that introduces the second Republic, and given the way things are now, I fear that won't happen any time soon, and the even bigger fear is that it won't be bloodless, given some of the people that are involved with politics now.

We're hearing all sorts of veiled threats and comments that the Euro is a failed experiment, it looks to me as if the experiment of Ireland ruling itself and making it's own rules has suffered a similar fate, and a lot of that failure is related to the attitude that is showing up now in so many threads, which is effectively "Feck ye and your rules", which is the old anti colonial attitude that is now so deeply embedded in the culture, it's still affecting the social and economic future of the country despite the fact that colonial rule ended nearly a century ago. It went right to the top, and is still there, as we are seeing in the attitudes of some of the TD's even now. Bin charges, water charges, housing charges, it's been the same to all of them, why should WE pay them. Simple, because WE use them. The other side of that coin, which has also been neglected, is that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and for too long, the piper has not been playing a tune that the people wanted to hear.

I desperately wish that the politicians would recognise that there is a strong chance that the Euro is gone, and if that goes, there is also a strong chance that the Republic is also gone, so their thinking really needs to be how they will recover from both of those events, and what they will do to prevent a complete melt down of the social structure and fabric of the country. It's a lot closer than many people care to recognise, and if it does happen, then the hardships of the last 2 or 3 years will seem like nothing compared to the consequences of a total failure of the entire structure and systems of the state, and like it or not, it is getting that close, and getting closer every day, as a result of some circumstances that are outside of our control, and some that we've failed to control adequately.

I hope I'm wrong, but I really fear that I could be right, or closer than I'm comfortable with. Michael Noonan said in the week that a referendum here would really be on if we want to stay in the Euro or not. He is so wrong, and so out of touch, it's scary.

Regardless of what the actual question is, or how it's worded, I fear a large number will vote no, on the basis that they resent and despise the political classes that are carrying on in their delusion that "they're all right, and they are right in what they are doing".

It's possible that they are right in what they are doing, but they've done so little to really sell us that it's right, and even less to reform their own house, there is a strong liklihood that the people will give them the proverbial 2 fingers, partly for exactly the same reason that they say "Feck the rules", because it's engrained in the culture at this stage, and partly because there has been so little real discussion about what the consequences of (say) burning the bondholders really would be.

If a referendum does happen here, and it's clear they desperately don't want one, there is a good chance that the response will not be the one they and the troika want, and if they then go again, as they did for Lisbon and Nice, I have no confidence that they're capable of getting the vote they will need, and that will be the end of the European bubble, and the consequences will be massive, and go way beyond anything that even the worst doomsayers have predicted.

I should be really happy tonight, we've just been with our daughter today, as she came home with her new son, but when I've stopped later in the evening, and looked at some of the attitudes and comments I see across boards, and other places, and see the events that are happening in other places, and then look at what the future seems to be holding, I become very depressed at how bleak that future is in so many areas, and how few real options are open to us to try and change that future.

Getting real work is almost impossible, as close on half a million people know.

Selling the house and downsizing to reduce our outgoings is pretty much impossible, there's no market for used property at the moment, and nothing to encourage that market, the only thing the Government want to do is clear the backlog of unsold new properties that are stuck in NAMA or on the books of the banks, so that's dead. The other aspect to that is that when we bought this house, its value was going to be part of my pension, but with what's happened in recent years, that's looking a very forlorn hope now.

Change things to become less dependent on oil. Nice theory, as long as you have some money to spend on the changes, but if the money has gone, for all sorts of reasons, like the collapse of share values and property values, and listening to the idiots or fools that said it would be a short recession and soft landing for property, so we kept businesses going when we should have pulled the plug sooner and not ploughed in even more money. There's also the issue that there is no real alternative to oil at the moment, so many of the carbon neutral options that are supposed to be there are not really there, or don't work with the efficiency or reliability that they are supposed to have. Wood pellets, Lovely theory, until you discover that there are technical issues with the stoves, and that the only reliable source of supply at the moment is in 25 Kg sacks, bulk pellet is just not there. Whatever chance I might have of being able to haul 25 Kg sacks around for a while, the thought of having to try and do that in a few years time is daunting.

Gas is a non starter unless I pay a fortune I don't have for the connection to the main, and electric is not an option, night storage just is not flexible enough, and will still attract significant carbon tax because the infrastructure to generate the power is not the right sort.

Then there's the bankers that we've bailed out paying exorbitant fees to debt chasing bottom sucking scum supposed solicitors and debt collectors who delight in harassing people that don't have a snowball in midsummers chance of repaying unsecured loans anytime in the next decade.

All in all, we're fcuked, and for a lot longer and a lot deeper than most realise.

So, bottom line, abolish the Seanad. It might not actually matter that much, it's likely to be overtaken by events and circumstances that have nothing to do with how effective or otherwise the Seanad actually was or is.

Park Royal

The only thing I saw a Senator do was cause one hell of a fuss over not

getting a cup of tea on a train .......

he went so far as to hold a photo shoot on Collooney rail platform....

then he sent it to the local papers......

if thats the height of these peoples concerns........

then get rid of them.......

I'm sure the gent was from Drumshambo.....

Scofflaw

sdeire wrote: »

What perhaps I didn't make clear in my post above, and I think needs to be stated, is my frustration at the reasons for the potential abolition of half the Oireachtas - which is Enda playing straight into the hands of angry people who have less money and would sell their Grannies for a return to prosperity - or failing that, a parliamentary scapegoat.

Actually, it's more the angry people playing straight into the hands of the government. Abolition of the Seanad does nothing at all for the people, and removes any possibility of an independent challenge to the government's whip-based control of the Dáil.

While the Seanad's record of challenging the government's almost total control over legislation isn't great, it's at least a possibility. Its abolition removes any last barriers to perfect control over legislation by the Cabinet - except the judges, but, hey, we voted to let the government set their pay, so if they're uppity, they can be reined in. Local government has long been emasculated.

And so, should another Lenihan and Cowen combo - party boss and main party faction leader - choose to drop the country in the cacky from an even greater height at some future point, it'll be comforting to know that we've voluntarily removed absolutely any possibility whatsoever that that decision might be challenged.

cordially,
Scofflaw

books4sale

When I think of the Seanad I think Ivor Calley...so say no more!

Get rid of it, just a house for failed politicians to rake up expenses at the taxpayers expense.

Scofflaw

books4sale wrote: »

When I think of the Seanad I think Ivor Calley...so say no more!

Get rid of it, just a house for failed politicians to rake up expenses at the taxpayers expense.

QED.

glumly,
Scofflaw

RichardAnd

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, it's more the angry people playing straight into the hands of the government. Abolition of the Seanad does nothing at all for the people, and removes any possibility of an independent challenge to the government's whip-based control of the Dáil.

While the Seanad's record of challenging the government's almost total control over legislation isn't great, it's at least a possibility. Its abolition removes any last barriers to perfect control over legislation by the Cabinet - except the judges, but, hey, we voted to let the government set their pay, so if they're uppity, they can be reined in. Local government has long been emasculated.

And so, should another Lenihan and Cowen combo - party boss and main party faction leader - choose to drop the country in the cacky from an even greater height at some future point, it'll be comforting to know that we've voluntarily removed absolutely any possibility whatsoever that that decision might be challenged.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well said Scofflaw. I don't always agree with you but in this case, we can.

murphaph

I don't see the need for the Seanad. I think it is a costly talking shop that has never really challenged the Dail at all. Scofflaw's point that it might someday do so is to me a poor argument for keeping it.

I would rather see it abolished and the reform focus put on the Dail. Other modern western states get along fine with a unicameral system, some large, some small.

I would also like to hear more about FG's proposals at election time for an introduction of a partial list system (hopefully moving eventually to a complete list system tbh). I firmly believe that a root cause of Ireland's woes lies in the PRSTV system with multi-seat constituencies. People like to think that by voting in a mouthy independent that they'll get more for their parish, and to an extent this is true, but national politics needs concensus and that means political parties being important and not individuals.

What good is that new parish hall if the entire economy has collapsed around it because nobody in Dail Eireann was watching the big picture?

Well Scofflaw, to say that the senate might be there in future to protect us is to dismiss the fact that the government is pretty much always going to control the senate anyway. It didn't stop us from being dropped from a great height before, why should it in future?


The president is there to protect us from unconstitutional actions.

Scofflaw

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Well Scofflaw, to say that the senate might be there in future to protect us is to dismiss the fact that the government is pretty much always going to control the senate anyway. It didn't stop us from being dropped from a great height before, why should it in future?

I'm not arguing that it doesn't need reform, though!

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The president is there to protect us from unconstitutional actions.

Which also, you'll note, didn't stop us being dropped from a great height.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach

I'd favour the reform option. Given some of the ideas expressed in this thread, an elected seanad could be made more relevant and act as a check/balance on the dail. However, given the way the government has a block on referendums - ie this is what we think is the solution - meaning change is unlikely to come from the political class which is part of the problem and not the solution.

FreudianSlippers

Irish Steve wrote: »

If the Seanad was truly representative of the people. instead of being stuffed full of academics, former or intending TD's, political lackeys, and too many people from teaching or the legal profession, then it might be a more worthwhile institution. Some form of check and balance is needed to make sure that the other house doesn't get ideas above it's station, there has to be a good reason why the American system still has 2 houses, and they have liberal gun laws.

Um... you realise that the role of "representative of the people" is what the Dail is supposed to be, right?

This is precisely why we need a Seanad and should reform its role, because our lower house has taken up the position of both houses.

Pharaoh1

Manach wrote: »

I'd favour the reform option. Given some of the ideas expressed in this thread, an elected seanad could be made more relevant and act as a check/balance on the dail. However, given the way the government has a block on referendums - ie this is what we think is the solution - meaning change is unlikely to come from the political class which is part of the problem and not the solution.

But we have had report after report suggesting reforms and nothing has changed. I, like many would like to see a functioning, relevant upper house but the establishment are incapable of changing so I think most people have run out of patience and will decide to scrap it. I will reluctantly vote to get rid of it knowing full well that if it is retained nothing will have changed in five years time.
Look at the report on local govt reform - nothing done.
Anyone remember Brian Lenihan's commission on higher level civil service remuneration which I recall he set up to make reasonable comparisons with similar functions in similar sized EU countries - anyone hear about that lately?

It raises a bigger question about our competence in governing ourselves.
Take countries like say Netherlands and Denmark - Ok they did'nt have building booms in the noughties but they still did well and are wealthy nations.
Why is it just for an example that their elected leaders are capable of some type of restraint in setting Prime Minister, Ministerial and Higher Civil Servant pay, perks, pensions etc...
Why is it that our crowd could'nt and proceeded to ramp everything up to ridiculous and unsustainable levels? Is it something in our psyche? Are we just more greedy or selfish or crooked? Are our vested interests so much more powerful? It would be an interesting study.
I heard Stephen Donnelly say recently on Vinny B that the Irish people are desperate to see the back of the Troika but I am kind of ashamed to say that I am not.
I see them as some sort of (albeit very crude) brake on our governing elite who are itching to go back to their old ways like bumping up pay for advisors. The opinion poll at the weekend showing FF back up to 20% is another indication that many ordinary people maybe subconciously want a return to the noughties madness.

Scofflaw

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

But we have had report after report suggesting reforms and nothing has changed. I, like many would like to see a functioning, relevant upper house but the establishment are incapable of changing so I think most people have run out of patience and will decide to scrap it. I will reluctantly vote to get rid of it knowing full well that if it is retained nothing will have changed in five years time.
Look at the report on local govt reform - nothing done.
Anyone remember Brian Lenihan's commission on higher level civil service remuneration which I recall he set up to make reasonable comparisons with similar functions in similar sized EU countries - anyone hear about that lately?

It raises a bigger question about our competence in governing ourselves.
Take countries like say Netherlands and Denmark - Ok they did'nt have building booms in the noughties but they still did well and are wealthy nations.
Why is it just for an example that their elected leaders are capable of some type of restraint in setting Prime Minister, Ministerial and Higher Civil Servant pay, perks, pensions etc...
Why is it that our crowd could'nt and proceeded to ramp everything up to ridiculous and unsustainable levels? Is it something in our psyche? Are we just more greedy or selfish or crooked? Are our vested interests so much more powerful? It would be an interesting study.
I heard Stephen Donnelly say recently on Vinny B that the Irish people are desperate to see the back of the Troika but I am kind of ashamed to say that I am not.
I see them as some sort of (albeit very crude) brake on our governing elite who are itching to go back to their old ways like bumping up pay for advisors. The opinion poll at the weekend showing FF back up to 20% is another indication that many ordinary people maybe subconciously want a return to the noughties madness.

"Put a beggar on horseback and he'll ride to the Devil" comes to mind.

I don't think it's anything peculiar to the Irish psyche. It's more that our prosperity - and however much we complain about the illusory wealth of the Tiger years, we really are a lot more prosperous than we were - was quite sudden, and came after years of economic failure. Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, we acted exactly like the nouveau riche we were.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sdanseo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, it's more the angry people playing straight into the hands of the government. Abolition of the Seanad does nothing at all for the people, and removes any possibility of an independent challenge to the government's whip-based control of the Dáil.

While the Seanad's record of challenging the government's almost total control over legislation isn't great, it's at least a possibility. Its abolition removes any last barriers to perfect control over legislation by the Cabinet - except the judges, but, hey, we voted to let the government set their pay, so if they're uppity, they can be reined in. Local government has long been emasculated.

And so, should another Lenihan and Cowen combo - party boss and main party faction leader - choose to drop the country in the cacky from an even greater height at some future point, it'll be comforting to know that we've voluntarily removed absolutely any possibility whatsoever that that decision might be challenged.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The emboldened part is of course what I meant to say, but got it backwards.

Very well said.

The Scientician

I don't think the Seanad should be completely scrapped but perhaps it should become a more scaled-down entity. I'd be all in favour of the number of TDs being slashed too. Ireland has the population of a medium-sized international city, it should be run like (a successful) one. We seem to have more elected officals per head of population than most European countries. You could argue that this is true democracy in practice but I wonder how much of that is just waste.

AhSureTisGrand

In this country we effectively have only one house of parliament, the Dáil. The government (ie the people who control the Dáil) has a guaranteed Senate majority. Seanad Éireann is essentially a retiring home.

However... I think we ought to have a meaningful, democratically elected Upper House. If we get rid of the Seanad I doubt we can ever achieve this. We will probably never get the Upper House back if we vote it away.

astrofool

The Dáil will never put out a referendum that gives them less power, we can talk about it all we like, but the Seanad is simply a drain on resources these days, and barring a revolution and new constitution occurring, it should be abolished.

thebman

astrofool wrote: »

The Dáil will never put out a referendum that gives them less power, we can talk about it all we like, but the Seanad is simply a drain on resources these days, and barring a revolution and new constitution occurring, it should be abolished.

This is ultimately what it comes down to isn't it? The Dail isn't going to give the Seanad the power to do anything that gets in their way so as a check and balance it is a bit redundant.

Anyone saying they are in favor of reform of the Seanad really needs to ask themselves, will any government/dail ever reform it in the way they desire?

If the answer is no then why keep it? We need a better reason than reform would be better as reform will never happen with regard to the current Seanad so we just need to get rid of it IMO.

I'd be in favor of reforming it but realise that it will never happen and there is no point in keeping it in the hope that one day, reform of it might happen. We would be better to scrape it and if we can show we need one in the future, get a proper debate about what powers we might like it to have.

Or in other words, this is a case of starting again is better than fixing what is there.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which also, you'll note, didn't stop us being dropped from a great height.

My argument is that the senate is already government controlled so getting rid of it makes no real difference to legislative outcomes. What we could see is a re-imagining of the presidential role as a popular safeguard for the people. Using these powers:

He or she may refuse to sign a Bill if a majority of the members of the Seanad and at least one-third of the members of the Dáil petition him or her not to sign the Bill. The President must consult with the Council of State before deciding within 6 days whether or not to sign the Bill.

So essentially one third of the Dail can petition a president making it a possibility for the opposition to hold the presidency and enough seats to hold sway over the process of decision making.



http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/the_president/president_of_ireland_and_legislation.html