Retain The Senate.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

At least you held true to the old adage: always leave them laughing. Michael McDowell, ex of Gonzaga College. Yeah, his life story truly is an inspiring struggle from humble beginnings against all the odds.

No surprise that the "reform the Seanad" agenda disappears as soon as the Seanad is retained though.

I find it strange that you aren't surprised that the reform the Seanad campaign disappeared so quickly, yet you seem to think Dail reform after the abolishment of the Seanad was inevitable. The party whip system isn't going to change, we've had a number of TD's kicked out of political parties in the biggest Government majority in the history of the state, for not toeing the Government line. I don't understand people who think abolishing the Seanad will mean some reform to that.

Sand

Reform of the Dail was constitutionally inevitable with the Seanad gone because the Seanad was mentioned several dozen times in the constitution. With it gone, there would be a question of what should replace the reference to the Seanad.

Removing the Seanad was attractive as part of a package of reforms (including but not limited to the party whip). I don't believe anyone apart from Enda Kenny ever submitted that removal of the Seanad was the solitary reform required in the Irish state. Even without a wider package of reforms it is still useful to remove the Seanad - the removal of the Seanad removes one more fig leaf that serves to hide the sham of electing TDs to a whipped Dail. At the very least it would be a cost saving - the Seanad is entirely powerless and useless. If people want a powerless talking shop discussing the affairs of the day as they affect Ireland, they should sign up to Boards.Ie which has the benefit of being entirely free for the Irish taxpayer, pretty transparent and freely accessible within certain rules.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

Reform of the Dail was constitutionally inevitable with the Seanad gone because the Seanad was mentioned several dozen times in the constitution. With it gone, there would be a question of what should replace the reference to the Seanad.

Removing the Seanad was attractive as part of a package of reforms (including but not limited to the party whip). I don't believe anyone apart from Enda Kenny ever submitted that removal of the Seanad was the solitary reform required in the Irish state. Even without a wider package of reforms it is still useful to remove the Seanad - the removal of the Seanad removes one more fig leaf that serves to hide the sham of electing TDs to a whipped Dail. At the very least it would be a cost saving - the Seanad is entirely powerless and useless. If people want a powerless talking shop discussing the affairs of the day as they affect Ireland, they should sign up to Boards.Ie which has the benefit of being entirely free for the Irish taxpayer, pretty transparent and freely accessible within certain rules.

The problem was we didn't vote on a package of reforms and as you pointed out with the slow movement of talk about Seanad reform since the referendum, how are we to know what type of reform of the Dail is envisaged?

The Dail already is a talking shop as the abortion debate showed. I mighn't agree with Creighton and Matthews but I'll defend their right to voice an alternative opinion, and I find expulsion from the party for expressing their views morally abhorrent, especially taking account the huge majority the Government had. Why would anybody trust a Government on parliamentary reform after that show of Haugheyesque power grabbing?