Campaign to save the Seanad launched

Sierra Oscar

Judgement Day wrote: »

I suspect the reverse and that the savings would be substantially greater that €20 million. Can you believe anything that comes out of the Oireachtas?

Yes, I can. I would trust the word of the Clerk of Dáil Éireann, Kieran Coughlan, much more than the political figures who are actively involved in the campaign. There is an audit currently under way to highlight the potential savings - and the early indications are that the figures will be no where near to what the government is proposing.

Currently things like office upkeep, maintenance etc. are being included in the savings even though those costs will persist should Seanad Éireann be abolished.

Enda is on the record as having insisted that it would save €30 million, then the figure was €25 million and now he claims 'up to €20 million'. However it is looking like the actual figure will be much lower than that.

Javan

Judgement Day wrote: »

I suspect the reverse and that the savings would be substantially greater that €20 million. Can you believe anything that comes out of the Oireachtas?

If saving money is your only goal then why not get rid of the Dail and save the Seanad. You could save over €100 million (conservative estimate) that way.

Of course that is nonsense. Getting rid of the Dail would leave us without an effective government, so the 'saving' is irrelevant.
Getting rid of the Seanad would also leave us without an effective government, so the 'saving' from Seanad abolition is equally irrelevant.

Harry Angstrom

Even if they end up saving 5 euro from abolishing The Seanad, the fact remains that it's a deeply flawed house which is in serious need of reform, which will never happen if the referendum is defeated. Enda Kenny will basically come out and say "I gave you a choice and you've decided to keep it". He won't reform it, as it won't be in his interest to do so.
I wouldn't be expecting too much on the Dail reform front either, to answer a previous question. The only parties who ever call for Dail reform are the ones on the opposition benches. Once they get into power, they quickly forget about it. It was ever thus. It reminds me of the British Labour Party banging on for years about the unfairness of the "first past the post" electoral system and about their plans to introduce the proportional representation system if elected. Guess what happened after Labour's landslide victory in 1997? Bye bye to plans for PR.

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Even if they end up saving 5 euro from abolishing The Seanad, the fact remains that it's a deeply flawed house which is in serious need of reform, which will never happen if the referendum is defeated. Enda Kenny will basically come out and say "I gave you a choice and you've decided to keep it". He won't reform it, as it won't be in his interest to do so.
I wouldn't be expecting too much on the Dail reform front either, to answer a previous question. The only parties who ever call for Dail reform are the ones on the opposition benches. Once they get into power, they quickly forget about it. It was ever thus. It reminds me of the British Labour Party banging on for years about the unfairness of the "first past the post" electoral system and about their plans to introduce the proportional representation system if elected. Guess what happened after Labour's landslide victory in 1997? Bye bye to plans for PR.

I don't understand your argument Harry, can you explain it to me?

I think everyone is agreed that Seanad reform will not happen. Either the house will be abolished or it will stay as-is. Similarly Dail reform is going to be window-dressing at best. Certainly any reform will not reduce the power of the Government parties or the party leadership.

So the choice before us is: Keep everything as it is, or get rid of the Seanad (which, I have argued, will make things worse).

So are you arguing that any saving, whether €5 or €20,000,000+ , should be taken regardless of the consequences?

Harry Angstrom

Javan, The Seanad is a complete affront to democracy. That is why I want to see it closed down. And we're pretty much agreed that it will not be reformed if the referendum is defeated. I would prefer to see it closed down, rather than see it continue on as the comfortable crony club that it is in its current state.

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Javan, The Seanad is a complete affront to democracy. That is why I want to see it closed down. And we're pretty much agreed that it will not be reformed if the referendum is defeated. I would prefer to see it closed down, rather than see it continue on as the comfortable crony club that it is in its current state.

Thanks for that.

I think that is short-sighted and will give us a much worse government and bad law, but I appreciate you making your view clear.

Harry Angstrom

Javan wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I think that is short-sighted and will give us a much worse government and bad law, but I appreciate you making your view clear.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Javan

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The funny thing is that I agree with you on just about everything (even Ivana Bacik ). I just don't think any of it is a good enough reason to make our lives worse in the future.

Pete_Cavan

Judgement Day wrote: »

Pete_Cavan you sound like that twit ex.FF Minister Noel Dempsey who dismissed the wasting of €30m on some project back in the Celtic Tiger days as insignificant. The €20m that would be saved annually by the abolition of the Senate could be spent on far worthier things - of course it won't be but that's a matter for a separate thread.

One could also argue that there are better ways to save between €10 and €20m but again that is a matter for a separate thread. While reform may not happen immediately, at least the people of this country will have expressed a desire to have a second house (although a reformed second house) and they do not want power concentrated with the Dail. Abolishing the Seanad may save some money and may mean you are less likely to hear from Ivana Bacik but are these good enough reasons to radically alter the structure of our parliament? Obviously the system needs to improve; we need a better standard of TD with relevant experiences, we need national representatives who look beyond their constituency and work for the benefit of the nation as a whole, we need proper scrutiny of legislation and real accountability - how does getting rid of the Seanad achieve any of this or improve the system in any way?

The whole system, including Dail and Seanad needs to be fixed but getting rid of the Seanad just papers over the cracks and gives government an excuse not to enact any real reform ("Sure didnt we abolish the Seanad").

Harry Angstrom

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

One could also argue that there are better ways to save between €10 and €20m but again that is a matter for a separate thread. While reform may not happen immediately, at least the people of this country will have expressed a desire to have a second house (although a reformed second house) and they do not want power concentrated with the Dail. Abolishing the Seanad may save some money and may mean you are less likely to hear from Ivana Bacik but are these good enough reasons to radically alter the structure of our parliament? Obviously the system needs to improve; we need a better standard of TD with relevant experiences, we need national representatives who look beyond their constituency and work for the benefit of the nation as a whole, we need proper scrutiny of legislation and real accountability - how does getting rid of the Seanad achieve any of this or improve the system in any way?

The whole system, including Dail and Seanad needs to be fixed but getting rid of the Seanad just papers over the cracks and gives government an excuse not to enact any real reform ("Sure didnt we abolish the Seanad").

It's not just TD's in the Dail who are cynically playing the local issues game. There are people in The Seanad who are blatantly using their position as a stepping stone to The Dail by doing the same thing. There's a particular Senator, and if you check out their Facebook page, they constantly drone on about how they've fixed potholes and road signage in a certain area. I won't mention the name of this person but their motives for being in the Seanad are utterly cynical. Yet another reason to close the place down and throw away the keys.

spank_inferno

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

It's not just TD's in the Dail who are cynically playing the local issues game. There are people in The Seanad who are blatantly using their position as a stepping stone to The Dail by doing the same thing. There's a particular Senator, and if you check out their Facebook page, they constantly drone on about how they've fixed potholes and road signage in a certain area. I won't mention the name of this person but their motives for being in the Seanad are utterly cynical. Yet another reason to close the place down and throw away the keys.

Why not name them?
Naming a senator you think is porochial will hardly rush the lawyers into Boards.ie offices.

Good loser

Calling for reform rather than abolition is a smart tactic which shunts the 'don't knows' into the anti camp.

Later in the campaign we'll have if you don't know vote no. When, of course, in logic the call would be if you don't know don't vote.

Imo the Senate got it's chances over 70 years and has been a failure. This is decision time and I'm for abolition.

If there was no Senate and this was a (crazy) proposal to intoduce one what % would vote for it?

Javan

Good loser wrote: »

Calling for reform rather than abolition is a smart tactic which shunts the 'don't knows' into the anti camp.

Later in the campaign we'll have if you don't know vote no. When, of course, in logic the call would be if you don't know don't vote.

Imo the Senate got it's chances over 70 years and has been a failure. This is decision time and I'm for abolition.

If there was no Senate and this was a (crazy) proposal to intoduce one what % would vote for it?

Calling for reform rather than abolition is not a tactic; it is the honest opinion of a great many people that reform would give a much better result than abolition.

Why do say the Seanad has been a failure? As I pointed out earlier in the thread it has has proposed hundreds of amendments to bills just in this term. Those amendments have the likely impact of reducing ongoing costs and legal challenges. To me that sounds like effective (if unglamorous) work.

The first purpose of the Oireachtas (both houses) is to set policy and legislate. The record of the current Oireachtas is that the Dail alone would produce some really bad law and the Seanad has been effective in noticing some of that and improving the bills.

A challenge to you and to everyone who would propose abolition of the Seanad: Explain how abolishing the upper house will give us better law in the future. (note: better, not cheaper.)

Good loser

Javan wrote: »

Calling for reform rather than abolition is not a tactic; it is the honest opinion of a great many people that reform would give a much better result than abolition.

Why do say the Seanad has been a failure? As I pointed out earlier in the thread it has has proposed hundreds of amendments to bills just in this term. Those amendments have the likely impact of reducing ongoing costs and legal challenges. To me that sounds like effective (if unglamorous) work.

The first purpose of the Oireachtas (both houses) is to set policy and legislate. The record of the current Oireachtas is that the Dail alone would produce some really bad law and the Seanad has been effective in noticing some of that and improving the bills.

A challenge to you and to everyone who would propose abolition of the Seanad: Explain how abolishing the upper house will give us better law in the future. (note: better, not cheaper.)

They catch a few points and miss hundreds.

Couldn't a few retired judges earn their pensions by studying the bills?

Has any unicamarel country introduced a second chamber in recent times? The 2 chamber idea probably came from the US where they had to have one because they were uniting independent states. The British had one for historical reasons - monarch, lords and commons.

If it's good enough for NZ etc.

Javan

Good loser wrote: »

They catch a few points and miss hundreds.

Couldn't a few retired judges earn their pensions by studying the bills?

Has any unicamarel country introduced a second chamber in recent times? The 2 chamber idea probably came from the US where they had to have one because they were uniting independent states. The British had one for historical reasons - monarch, lords and commons.

If it's good enough for NZ etc.

Actually they catch hundreds of points. About 550 so far this term, including some very important ones.
Possibly some retired judges could take on that role, though it would lead to an interesting discussion about separation of roles. But with that suggestion you are talking about reform and we seem to be all agreed that reform would be a better option than abolition (if it were an option on the table).

The Andhra Pradesh legislature in India became bicameral in 2007, so there is at least one example of a unicameral government becoming bicameral in recent times.

A unicameral parliament is in place in New Zealand and many other places. So what? There are many different systems of government that work in many different places.
As recently as 2011 there was a debate in New Zealand about re-introducing a Senate as part of an election reform referendum, so clearly at least some people there believe the unicameral system is not good enough.

There is nothing in what you have said that suggests Ireland would have better government or better laws after abolishing the Seanad.

View

Javan wrote: »

Calling for reform rather than abolition is not a tactic; it is the honest opinion of a great many people that reform would give a much better result than abolition.

It is a tactic as reform is not on the agenda, only abolition is.

The choice is between:
A) abolition, and,
the status quo - the current unreformed Seanad.

spank_inferno

View wrote: »

It is a tactic as reform is not on the agenda, only abolition is.

The choice is between:
A) abolition, and,
the status quo - the current unreformed Seanad.

Exactly.

Calling for reform is irrelevent as it is not going to happen & its not a choice.

Might as well demand for strawberries & cream along with Senate reform for all the difference it would make.

Pete_Cavan

If reform of the Seanad wont happen, reform of the Dail certainly wont happen - and the Dail is where reform in most badly needed. Abolishing the Seanad just papers over the cracks and does nothing to improve our system of government in any way, shape or form. We are still left with the same old Dail with all its problems, only now it has even greater power so the problems have gotten worse. I would be all for abolishing the Seanad if we also got real, effective Dail reform but that is not going to happen. I the absence of Dail reform we are better off with a second chamber.

Javan

View wrote: »

It is a tactic as reform is not on the agenda, only abolition is.

The choice is between:
A) abolition, and,
the status quo - the current unreformed Seanad.

If you read my posts on this thread you will see that I have consistently said that, while I would prefer to have the option of reform, it is not an option that is available.
It is interesting to discuss reform options, but they are basically irrelevant. I would not characterise that as a 'tactic' so much as having an honest discussion.

In any case it makes the question before us very simple. As you say the options are: no Seanad or no change.

This also makes the decision very easy; no Seanad would leave us with a worse government while no change would not.

View

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If reform of the Seanad wont happen, reform of the Dail certainly wont happen

The members of the Dail are free to reform it anytime they want to do so.

Voting on the proposed abolition of the Seanad doesn't impact that in the slightest.

What would impact the likelihood of seeing either or both houses of the Oireachtas reformed would be the election of people dedicated to such reform. That is something the electorate is free to do in any election should they consider it desirable.

View

Javan wrote: »

This also makes the decision very easy; no Seanad would leave us with a worse government while no change would not.

The existence of the Seanad doesn't impact the government at all since no members of it are drawn from the ranks of the Seanad.

Nor does it have any meaningful impact on legislation. The Seanad can't force the amendment of any legislation should the Dail set its face against it.

BuilderPlumber

I think the whole system needs reform. Abolishing the Seanad does not solve this. Politics in Ireland is way too orientated around point scoring and making the rival party look bad rather than doing what is right for the country. There is way too much opposing and/or defending individuals and parties, resulting in endless useless debates meaning that nothing helpful is done.

Anyone who viewed last weeks' circus in the Seanad would immediately say that this needs to be abolished! And rightly so. Tony Mulcahy was like something straight out of Killinaskully. More sinister, David Norris' insulting rant showed a maniac bordering on insanity with a parliamentary style modelled on Adolf Hitler.

However, this is NOT only typical of the Seanad but the Dail as well! Ireland is poorly governed because of this debate-orientated parliamentary approach where sticking to the party line and making sure you shout down your opponents is the most important thing to do.

Until we abolish this from ALL Irish politics, true reform will never take hold.

Harry Angstrom

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think the whole system needs reform. Abolishing the Seanad does not solve this. Politics in Ireland is way too orientated around point scoring and making the rival party look bad rather than doing what is right for the country. There is way too much opposing and/or defending individuals and parties, resulting in endless useless debates meaning that nothing helpful is done.

Anyone who viewed last weeks' circus in the Seanad would immediately say that this needs to be abolished! And rightly so. Tony Mulcahy was like something straight out of Killinaskully. More sinister, David Norris' insulting rant showed a maniac bordering on insanity with a parliamentary style modelled on Adolf Hitler.

However, this is NOT only typical of the Seanad but the Dail as well! Ireland is poorly governed because of this debate-orientated parliamentary approach where sticking to the party line and making sure you shout down your opponents is the most important thing to do.

Until we abolish this from ALL Irish politics, true reform will never take hold.

At least the general public have the chance of getting rid of them from the Dail. It's much tougher to get rid of them from The Seanad on account of the fact that it is a completely undemocratic institution. There won't be any reform of The Seanad. If people vote to retain it, the same old status quo will continue.

PRAF

I'm still very much undecided about the Seanad. However, one thing I'm pretty sure about is that the question of whether to keep it or not is largely irrelevant to the future well being of the country. I could think of much better referenda to put to the people. Here are a couple for starters

- Reform the way the Dail is elected in order to reduce / end parish pump politics
- Reform upwards only rent reviews to give our retail sector some breathing space from idotic / greedy landlords

At the moment, I'm edging towards a vote to abolish the Seaned. However, I'm under no illusions that the savings will make any difference whatsoever to the public finances.

Finton90

Can't see what use the seanad is tbh. Its undemocratic for starts, the idea that people from trinity and the nuis know more about politics than others is nonsense. I mean my parents can't vote and i would consider them to be very well informed whereas my sister can and she would just about the able to tell you the name of the taoiseach.

Another problem is that its used by failed dail candidates as a backdoor into politics. If candidates don't receive a mandate from their constituency they should go back to their day jobs instead of being sneaked in the back door of politics. some candidates have the idea that they are going to be public representative whether the public want them or not. One house is enough for a country of Ireland's size.

BuilderPlumber

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

At least the general public have the chance of getting rid of them from the Dail. It's much tougher to get rid of them from The Seanad on account of the fact that it is a completely undemocratic institution. There won't be any reform of The Seanad. If people vote to retain it, the same old status quo will continue.

This is true. The Dail and Seanad are both equally in need of reform but the people should be allowed vote in for the Seanad politicians as well. Not that voting makes much difference but at least we can get rid of maybe some of the worst ones.

The Seanad as it is is full of washed up politicians who have a place to go if they don't do well in general elections. How undemocratic: the people already reject some cowboy but that cowboy still gets a political appointment. Others can stay there and are quite happy to enter it for life like Adolf Norris. More younger up and coming ones can use it as a stomping ground to gain reputation for standing as a TD at a later stage.

BuilderPlumber

Finton90 wrote: »

Can't see what use the seanad is tbh. Its undemocratic for starts, the idea that people from trinity and the nuis know more about politics than others is nonsense. I mean my parents can't vote and i would consider them to be very well informed whereas my sister can and she would just about the able to tell you the name of the taoiseach.

Another problem is that its used by failed dail candidates as a backdoor into politics. If candidates don't receive a mandate from their constituency they should go back to their day jobs instead of being sneaked in the back door of politics. some candidates have the idea that they are going to be public representative whether the public want them or not. One house is enough for a country of Ireland's size.

NUI and Trinity people can only vote on the education panel. As regards the rest of the panels, I am unsure can anyone vote and think there is also the Taoiseach's 12 who can be appointed by the Taoiseach at will. My belief is that the Seanad either goes or else should be something that every person can vote for candidates in. As regards reform, the Seanad as well as the Dail both need radical reform! The current Seanad (and Dail) are obstacles to our development as a nation and are enemies of the people in the highest order.

Finton90

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

NUI and Trinity people can only vote on the education panel. As regards the rest of the panels, I am unsure can anyone vote and think there is also the Taoiseach's 12 who can be appointed by the Taoiseach at will. My belief is that the Seanad either goes or else should be something that every person can vote for candidates in. As regards reform, the Seanad as well as the Dail both need radical reform! The current Seanad (and Dail) are obstacles to our development as a nation and are enemies of the people in the highest order.

Completely agree, a reformed democratic seanad would be fine but imo if it is retained after the referendum the whole issue will probably be put on the back burner again and it could be another decade before reform happens. Better of just voting to get ride of it, sick of listening to the likes of David Norris can never understand why he is so popular, he's the most pompous, bombastic person in the country and the type of person who probably thinks that there should be elites and a class system in societies with him at the top of course:P

Boulevardier

"NUI and Trinity people can only vote on the education panel." That is not correct. NUI and Trinity graduates do not vote on any panel. They have their own constituencies, 3 seats for Trinity, 3 for NUI.

Sierra Oscar

I see Sinn Féin have suddenly done a u-turn by announcing today that they will be supporting the government campaign. This is despite the fact that they voted against the abolition of the Seanad in both the Dáil and Seanad, and had spokespeople out for the last number of weeks expressing concern about the governments plan. Talk about being hypocritical, SF are all over the place lately.

I'm telling you, SF are shaping up for entering into coalition with FG.