Former seanad members campaign to save seanad

bamboozle

i see the Irish Times has posted this
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0723/1224320625757.html

I thought we were due a referendum last year on closing this waste of taxpayers money.

The last time the Seanad over ruled a Dail bill was the 1963 Pawnbrokers act, that only happened as the FF senators had gone home for tea.

The sooner the seanad goes the better, it serves little purpose apart from acting as a halfway house for failed TD's like Donnie Cassidy, Ivor the skiver etc to bump up their pension entitlements and screw the state for more expenses.

PRAF

I see your point on the Seaned. There is no doubt that it's current structure and stature mean that it is nothing more than just a debating chamber for failed GE candidates. If the choice is retain the existing seanad or abolish it, I'd say abolish it.

However, if totally reformed and redesigned, there might be a potentially useful role for the seaned. The Dail it totally dominated by the whip system, is too party politicial, and too parochial as well. The biggest failing of the seaned in the last 30 years is that the upper house had consistently failed to legislate to reform it, totally ignoring endless reports and recommendations on how to do so.

Politicians like Shane Ross, Joe O'Toole, Feargal Quinn and David Norris impressed me in the seanad when I visited Leinster House. They have even managed to achieve quite a bit despite the limited role of the second house.

I'd be in favour of asking the constitutional convention look at its role. However, all in all, I wouldn't lose too much sleep if it was abolished tomorrow!

Dirk Gently

I agree with the above poster. Closing the seanad isn't reform, it's simply copper fastening centralised power in an undemocratic Dail whip system. I'd be more in favour of an improved role for the seanad than getting rid of it altogether. We need a strong seperation of powers. The last thing we need to do is concentrate power even further than it already is within the cabinet.

murphaph

Dirk Gently wrote: »

I agree with the above poster. Closing the seanad isn't reform, it's simply copper fastening centralised power in an undemocratic Dail whip system. I'd be more in favour of an improved role for the seanad than getting rid of it altogether. We need a strong seperation of powers. The last thing we need to do is concentrate power even further than it already is within the cabinet.

Other countries get by fine with a unicameral system. I'd be in favour of Dail reform and Seanad abolition tbh. Using a reformed Seanad to keep tabs on a broken Dail seems to somewhat miss the point to me.

Somehow having an extra house with a similar make-up as the Dail would prevent the concentration of power?

PRAF

If you are looking at political reform, I'd suggest that there are more fundamental questions to ask. For example, why is the Dail so subservient to the executive. There is effectively no accountability for the executive until it comes to general election time. The average TD has no real power to introduce laws, exercise their own judgement on critical issues, etc. In addition, the committees seem to lack real power and independence.

Nodin

Dirk Gently wrote: »

I agree with the above poster. Closing the seanad isn't reform, it's simply copper fastening centralised power in an undemocratic Dail whip system. I'd be more in favour of an improved role for the seanad than getting rid of it altogether. We need a strong seperation of powers. The last thing we need to do is concentrate power even further than it already is within the cabinet.

True.

The odds of that happening, however, are between negligible and SFA. It was designed to be a powerless talking shop, and none of the major parties show the slightest interest in changing that. Getting rid of it is in a sense a bit of honesty.

Shea O'Meara

What really got me was Bertie Ahern appointing failures such as Mary O'Rourke and snake oil salesmen such as Callely. It's like an ongoing golden handshake for the unelected. No place for it in a democracy. Waste of money and mostly just jobs for the loyal boys and girls.
Literally a talking shop, which can at best cause a bit of a delay. Another hangover from British rule.

RichardAnd

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

What really got me was Bertie Ahern appointing failures such as Mary O'Rourke and snake oil salesmen such as Callely. It's like an ongoing golden handshake for the unelected. No place for it in a democracy. Waste of money and mostly just jobs for the loyal boys and girls.
Literally a talking shop, which can at best cause a bit of a delay. Another hangover from British rule.

Not quite. Politically, the UK is quite different from the republic as it is a constitutional monarchy (even though they don't have a constitution). The Irish system more closely resembles the US congress and senate.

I do agree that the Seanad is used as a dump from trouble makers and mates of sitting politicians but to me, just closing it doesn't address the issue at all. Without an upper house (yes, the Seanad is the upper house, believe it or not) it would leave all the power in the hands of venal ministers who take their orders from people quite removed from the man on the street. The Seanad is meant to prevent the Dail getting too big for its boots and that is what it should be reformed to do.

Incidentally, the constitutional barrier to the Dail reducing the payment of judges was put in place to prevent the lower house having undue control over the legal system. Joe Public voted that away in a mighty expression of "shure them f**kers get too much money as it is." Combine that with the desire to see that back of the senate and one arrives at an uncomfortable realisation that a pattern is developing.

Shea O'Meara

RichardAnd wrote: »

Not quite. Politically, the UK is quite different from the republic as it is a constitutional monarchy (even though they don't have a constitution). The Irish system more closely resembles the US congress and senate.

I'm aware that we have not had a constitutional monarchy since the reign of Charles Haughey the 1st, however I think you'll find our Seanad resembles the house of lords in many ways.

RichardAnd wrote: »

I do agree that the Seanad is used as a dump from trouble makers and mates of sitting politicians but to me, just closing it doesn't address the issue at all. Without an upper house (yes, the Seanad is the upper house, believe it or not) it would leave all the power in the hands of venal ministers who take their orders from people quite removed from the man on the street. The Seanad is meant to prevent the Dail getting too big for its boots and that is what it should be reformed to do.

Everything you state here is why it should be closed. Senators are more in touch with the man on the street how? As unpopular as many ministers are a great deal of them are working class or at least live amongst them and are elected by the man on the street.
Eleven appointed by the Taoiseach, (that'll show them ministers!), Twelve elected by university grads and other chosen third level institutions, roight on! And finally, 43 by a panel made up of TDs, other senators and councillors.
Hardly power to the people now is it?

RichardAnd wrote: »

Incidentally, the constitutional barrier to the Dail reducing the payment of judges was put in place to prevent the lower house having undue control over the legal system. Joe Public voted that away in a mighty expression of "shure them f**kers get too much money as it is." Combine that with the desire to see that back of the senate and one arrives at an uncomfortable realisation that a pattern is developing.

So we should keep it to keep the democratically elected ministers in place, overseen by, for all intents and purposes, a private members club elected by like minded chums. And if the great unwashed want rid of it, they don't know what's good for them?
Nobody should be in a position to make a difference to the lives of people in a democracy unless voted in to do so, mind you that leaves the Seanad okay, because it does **** all.

I would suggest its all the harsh cut backs and measures has the man on the street looking at wastes of time and money like the Seanad, not a lack of understanding or confusion with a constitutional monarchy.

astrofool

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

The sitting TD's will never allow the Seanad to take any power away from the Dáil.

In the absence of revolution, the only solution is to shut it down and save the money and get rid of a few politicians.

If a revolution comes, then a proper checks and balances system can be put in place at the outset.

All the talk of Seanad reform is completely pie in the sky.

SeanW

It strikes me that a lot of things in the Irish political system are just knock-offs of the U.K system, which we obviously created substitutes for during the time of independence.

First they have the House of Lords, an almost totally useless talking shop, filled with political cronies and has-beens. We have the Seanad.

Then there's the Monarchy, a ceremonial position with very limited powers, we have the presidency, which seems to me to be an almost drop-in replacement, only our President has slightly more power, is democratically elected, and does his/her job with less pomp and ceremony.

Dave!

I had to laugh yesterday at Enda's response to this opposition - with a defiant tone he said something to the effect of "We've had recommendations for reform for over 70 years!"

...so, rather than implement any of those reform recommendations, he's opting to just abolish it!

I wouldn't think that the Dáil would ever vote to reduce its own power, there's certainly no appetite for the reform agenda from any of the major parties, so I suppose I'd let the Seanad die if it came to vote.

irishdude11

Why do people keep going on about 'reforming the Seanad'...have yee not learned anything about how politics works in Ireland, as if the politicians would reform it in a way that would affect their grip on power. If it was 'reformed' the TDs and Senators could then use that as an excuse for its continued existence - 'Its been reformed, that's that, the Seanad is no longer a relevant issue'. And with that being the case its best to just get rid of it because there has been 100's of millions pissed away on it at this stage, and for what? Nothing, except to give tons of cash to a useless shower of twats who cant make it into the Dail and have such big egos that they cant walk away from politics.

PRAF

Whatever the merits or demerits of the seaned, I think you would still need to make substantial changes to our system of democracy if you abolished it. The more I think about it, the more I think this needs to be considered by the Constitutional Convention.

There are lots of countries that get by just fine with 1 legislature. Countries that seem to need 2 legislatures are the really big countries and also countries which have very different regions and sectors of society. The second chamber acts as a counterbalance to the primary legislature.

Would abolishing the seaned (AND then doing nothing else) just give the executive more free reign to do whatever they want. We'd be left with a powerless Dail (because the Government dominiates it via the whip system), a powerless President (because the President has very little power), ineffective and subservient parliamentary committees who report to line ministers, etc. The only other checks and balance would be via the courts system.

If we abolish the seaned, I'd like to have at least some of the following in place:
- Stronger committee systems with enough independence to let them fulfil their role (especially the Public Accounts Committee)
- Much stronger (but also more streamlined) local government so that local issues can be dealt with at a local level
- Real mayors with real power for cities like Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, etc.
- More power for the president, perhaps a budget
- More power to the people (e.g. to recall a TD who is found to be corrupt)

thebman

I agree with others that no meaningful reform will occur so I support abolishing it altogether.

We can't afford the ever increasing pension costs of it anyway let alone the other costs of running the seanad