Campaign to save the Seanad launched

Finton90

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

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.

Not surprised by this sinn fein will always vote against anything that is in any way elitist.

Einhard

Get rid of it. Reformed or otherwise, there's really no need for it.

ressem

There was a referendum over 30 years ago, the 7th amendment, passed with 550,000 Yes votes to 45,000 against which allows voting to be opened up to all graduates, but the Dail failed and continues to fail to implement it.

If those FG TDs wanted to extend the voting eligibility, any of them could put in a private members bill on the first Friday back in September to get this implemented. If the taoiseach gave a damn, it could be wrapped up within a fortnight. No referendum required, and I'm pretty sure debates would not go on 'till 5 AM in the morning.

The question of other nominations seems all over the place though.

Why for example did the Irish Computer Society select New Ross Town /County Councillor Michael Sheehan (FF) as it's nominee?

Aside from his ability to get himself photoshopped into posters with JFK, there's no sign of any substantial connection with this industry listed in his election literature nor formal education.

Apparently he and so many others have "knowledge and practical experience of industry and commerce".
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/publications/IrisOifigSupplem25b.pdf

Some of these bodies take the nomination seriously, even if the nominee isn't a shoe-in, but most do not.

Boulevardier

In my view, if a referendum offers 2 bad alternatives (e.g. between "no" for an unreformed senate and "yes" for no senate) the best thing to do is vote no.

Certainly in this case, we all know that very few people support an unreformed senate. A yes vote will be taken as an endorsement for the idea of no senate, but a no vote cannot reasonably be seen as anything other than a demand for a better senate.

Anyone who prefers a better senate to none at all should therefore vote no.

View

Boulevardier wrote: »

a no vote cannot reasonably be seen as anything other than a demand for a better senate.

A no vote is a vote for the status quo - the current Seanad in other words.

There is no option for explanations or caveats for either yes or no votes.

spank_inferno

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

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.

Well SF & FG are unlikely coalition partners.

However I think the SF about face is simply down to them being unashamedly populist.
The majority prefer abolition...... they are just aligning themselves with the direction the wind is blowing.

They hope to enhance their cred with being on the winning team in a referendum.

COYW

spank_inferno wrote: »

Well SF & FG are unlikely coalition partners.

However I think the SF about face is simply down to them being unashamedly populist.
The majority prefer abolition...... they are just aligning themselves with the direction the wind is blowing.

They hope to enhance their cred with being on the winning team in a referendum.

Their u-turn on this shows what a weak party they are. If anyone has any doubt on how SF would act if they ever got into power, purely theoretical I know, take this as a good barometer. They would play second fiddle to FF or FG, moving from their current populist hard-left stance to the centre-right, in a heart beat.

Personally, I would prefer to see the Seanad being reformed, so I will be voting against the proposal. As for it's alleged elitism; we need more successful people in the corridors of power, whether they are from academia or the working world, not less. The Dail is awash with teachers or also-rans on both sides of the house.

Sierra Oscar wrote:

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

SF are open for a coalition with whoever will take them. The fact remains that neither FF nor FG will touch them with a forty foot.

Finton90

COYW wrote: »

Their u-turn on this shows what a weak party they are. If anyone has any doubt on how SF would act if they ever got into power, purely theoretical I know, take this as a good barometer. They would play second fiddle to FF or FG, moving from their current populist hard-left stance to the centre-right, without any regard for those who voted for them.

Personally, I would prefer to see the Seanad being reformed, so I will be voting against the proposal. As for it's alleged elitism; we need more successful people in the corridors of power, whether they are from academia or the working world, not less. The Dail is awash with teachers or also-rans on both sides of the house. Look where that has got us!

I agree, but everyone over the age of 18 should be allowed to decided who they are.

COYW

Finton90 wrote: »

I agree, but everyone over the age of 18 should be allowed to decided who they are.

Personally, I have a vote as is but it could be a possible change. The Seanad needs to become more visible too and people need to be educated regarding its functions.

Actually, on looking at the current voting I can see why SF would be looking to get it abolished. They got a meager 3 seats last time and they are not liking to see any improvement in that in it's current format. In the current Seanad, FG have 19, FF 14, Labour (12) now 11, SF 3, Independent 13 (12).

hmmm

They've had decades to reform the Senate and haven't. Now we are to believe that if we retain it, it will be reformed. Enough, the retirement home for failed TDs should be thrown out.

View

Finton90 wrote: »

[/B]

I agree, but everyone over the age of 18 should be allowed to decided who they are.

We already have a chamber that meets that criteria - the Dáil - so why would we need an "Upper Dáil" in addition the current Dáil?

Noreen1

We already have an "upper Dáil". It's called the Cabinet, where we get a bunch of Ministers who decide how the Country will be run (or not!) - and a party whip system to make sure their little power trips are humoured!

We've seen how conscientious objection won't be tolerated recently.
We've seen from all parties how the citizens of this Country are viewed as something to be lied to to get elected - and treated with complete contempt when the elections are over.

Yet people want to concentrate even more power in the hands of these privileged few?
Why?

James Reilly hates cigarettes - so he decides he intends to make Ireland tobacco free - and he doesn't even see anything wrong with baldly stating the fact.
Now, if he were to say he wanted to find ways to encourage people to give up smoking, nobody would object - but what he did actually say was downright dictatorial!

There is no question that the Seanad needs reform.
If it is retained, there is at least a possibility of reform.
If it is abolished - TDs will be whipped into doing what they're told, and there will be no dissenting voices to stand against the power-hungry few.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We need more Democracy in Ireland - not less!

Anyone who resents the contempt with which the Irish electorate are treated should vote NO!
Sooner or later, we will get a Political party that is willing to consider real reform - provided of course, that we haven't handed over all legal powers to the current parties, to manipulate at will, before that happens.

Finton90

View wrote: »

We already have a chamber that meets that criteria - the Dáil - so why would we need an "Upper Dáil" in addition the current Dáil?

I agree im in favour of abolishing it. I was just saying that if it is retained it needs to be democratic.

Manach

A reform would be to make it less democratic. Historically rule by the people encourages short-term thinking and populist party leaders promising bread and circuses to appease the public. Make it at least such that such a "key" democratic attribute that is the party system plays no part in a future Seanad - purely independents not under that party whip.

There is also the issue about concentration of power into one chamber. Given the recent addition of more extra supreme court judges, having been no doubt picked out especially by our justice minister, it does rather make a mockery of the concept of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

View

Finton90 wrote: »

I agree im in favour of abolishing it. I was just saying that if it is retained it needs to be democratic.

There has to be some electoral basis and function for a Senate other than that of being identical to its lower Chamber.

Hence they typically have an undemocratic electoral basis. For instance, many Senates (and the European Council) have their members chosen on a geographic basis not a population basis to ensure the majority population areas can't override everyone else. Others are there to ensure minorities are represented - the Free State Senate was set up on that basis.

The current Seanad does neither of those are there seems to be no desire for it to do so. In fact "reform" of it seems to be just a buzzword unless we count abolition as being reform that is.

Noreen1

Manach wrote: »

A reform would be to make it less democratic. Historically rule by the people encourages short-term thinking and populist party leaders promising bread and circuses to appease the public. Make it at least such that such a "key" democratic attribute that is the party system plays no part in a future Seanad - purely independents not under that party whip.

There is also the issue about concentration of power into one chamber. Given the recent addition of more extra supreme court judges, having been no doubt picked out especially by our justice minister, it does rather make a mockery of the concept of the doctrine of separation of powers.

There's truth in what you say about the promises - but traditionally, in Ireland, at any rate, those promises are broken, as often as not!

I agree that the party whip should have no place in the Seanad. In fact, I'd argue that it should have limited power in the Dáil. Certainly, the type of all-encompassing power that it now bestows on the Cabinet is cause for concern, and is something that needs urgent review imho.

There's also the issue of people having no way of overthrowing a Government, should that prove necessary for the good of the Country, at any point.
One obvious example is when promises are broken. I don't mean minor issues, but, certainly, the lies about the "cheapest bailout in the world", and "Not another cent" are serious enough to warrant people being able to take the Government to task over - and it shouldn't have to be several years after the event, either!

As to the Government of the day selecting the Judiciary?
That's a bad joke. Separation of powers should be just that! It should not be possible for any Government to appoint Judges. It leaves the legal system open to potential manipulation, and that is, frankly, dangerous.

All these possible, and necessary, reforms, are staring the Government (and main political parties) in the face - yet the best they can come up with is abolition of the Seanad?
I wonder why?

Finton90

View wrote: »

There has to be some electoral basis and function for a Senate other than that of being identical to its lower Chamber.

Hence they typically have an undemocratic electoral basis. For instance, many Senates (and the European Council) have their members chosen on a geographic basis not a population basis to ensure the majority population areas can't override everyone else. Others are there to ensure minorities are represented - the Free State Senate was set up on that basis.

The current Seanad does neither of those are there seems to be no desire for it to do so. In fact "reform" of it seems to be just a buzzword unless we count abolition as being reform that is.

Agree with this. I don't really think that reform is on the table in a serious way, its just something the pro seanad side are saying because they know that in its current form the senate isn't popular and won't be retained. If it does survive the referendum it's more than likely that the whole reform "thing" will be forgotten and it will be business as usual.

View

Noreen1 wrote: »

We already have an "upper Dáil". It's called the Cabinet, where we get a bunch of Ministers who decide how the Country will be run (or not!) - and a party whip system to make sure their little power trips are humoured!

Ultimately, the electorate get to decide how a democracy is run.

The reason we have a tight whip system is ultimately because the electorate vote for TDs who are willing to be bound by such a system. There is no requirement for TDs to do so, they choose to do so and the electorate choose to elect and re-elect them knowing this.

Manach

It could be argued that the overall system: with its party funding, transferable system of votes and set of electoral assets such as party offices and organisations make it difficult if not impossible for non-party individuals to be elected in sufficient manner to form a government.
Given how readily the current government is to alter the constitution, a record since its inception in 1937, then some form of break is needed to halt them making the constitution in effect a higher form of statutory legislation.

COYW

Manach wrote: »

A reform would be to make it less democratic. Historically rule by the people encourages short-term thinking and populist party leaders promising bread and circuses to appease the public. Make it at least such that such a "key" democratic attribute that is the party system plays no part in a future Seanad - purely independents not under that party whip.

I agree. At this moment in time, the Seanad offers us nothing new in terms of politicking. The Dail and the cabinet call the shots, whether those calls completely contradict their election promises or not. If the party ties were removed from the Seanad and it was made up of people who are of a proven caliber in their respective fields and the Seanad had the power to truly overrule the actions of the Dail, it would be very valuable to us, the electorate.

ressem

I think that a Seanad which is formally stripped of power, other than a limited built-in delay might be more valuable than the current setup.

I.e. if there isn't the fear from government that legislation can be thrown out in the second house, there would not be the need for the government majority and whip, thereby allowing a input from groups that are not currently represented. The media approach and TD representation is too hit and miss for this role.

I.e. you would only need a handful of speakers to represent the political party views, and the other seats could be freed to represent interests that are underrepresented in the dail.

Then send questions, suggested amendments in written form to the Dail. There is less grandstanding and rubbish by Oireachtas members through this form. If the Seanad members want to get the attention of the cameras, then they can do so at the gates, or maybe convert the disused Dail sweetshop to a podium.

BuilderPlumber

The Seanad serves no real purpose as it stands. It is kind of pointless to have so many layers of government in such a small country. Moreover, the antics of them does little to instill confidence in us that they are necessary.

I think the whole Irish system needs serious reform. There are way too many TDs who are not ministers and they are doing the same things as the county councillors. The Senators are for the most part washed up hasbeens, up and coming politicians and politicians who are unelectable. Irish politics is full of ignoramouses, eccentrics and cute hoors. The system is so top heavy with these types that honest and hardworking politicians are extremely rare if even in existence.

ressem

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The Seanad serves no real purpose as it stands. It is kind of pointless to have so many layers of government in such a small country. Moreover, the antics of them does little to instill confidence in us that they are necessary.

The layers are not pointless. It's inefficient, because the council level is of questionable trustworthiness, as corruption has been at least ignored by party heads (On Sunday there was Kerrigan's piece quoting John Bruton, when told by Frank Dunlop of a demand for corrupt payments by a councillor just ignoring it, saying that "neither Fine Gael or the world is populated by angels" ).
No sign that this has changed.

I think the whole Irish system needs serious reform. There are way too many TDs who are not ministers and they are doing the same things as the county councillors.

As the county councillors aren't trusted with money or power, and political parties continue to sponsor and allow them to stand under their party branding.
When are these political parties going to demonstrate quality control on who they allow under their banner at local level?
Credit union boards appear to be run better than County Councils with a handful of exceptions.

The Senators are for the most part washed up hasbeens, up and coming politicians and politicians who are unelectable. Irish politics is full of ignoramouses, eccentrics and cute hoors. The system is so top heavy with these types that honest and hardworking politicians are extremely rare if even in existence.

Now I think that's just false. Lots of the written oireachtas work is competently done, and the senators and TD for the main do seem to be trying to get their work done. Some are out of their depth.
And the Dail chamber during taoiseach's question time is just a shouting gallery which could do with a crying room for people that can't resist petty out of order digs.