Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Seanad Abolition, Yay or Nay?

  • 15-07-2013 09:50PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭


    As I'm sure most of you are aware by now, Enda wants to abolish the Seanad.

    Personally I think this would be a terrible idea, it wont save any money, it will wreck the constitution and will close off one of the few forums for open debate in the public sphere.

    The referendum is comming so what do ye think, should it be abolished or should it be reformed (and what should that reform look like).

    What should we do with the Seanad 254 votes

    Abolish it.
    0% 0 votes
    Reform it.
    100% 254 votes


«13456

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,440 ✭✭✭The Aussie


    Stick up a Poll...


    But a Yes for me.

    End the cushy number for the boys


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    Get rid of it.

    And get rid of the multiple pensions too while they are at it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,529 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    I initially like the idea of abolishing it but after a think about it, I'd rather see both the upper and lower houses radically reformed and made fit for purpose. We dont need that many politicians to run this country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    As a unicameralist*, I say burn the fcuker down.




    *always wanted to use that word:pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Why U no Atari Jaguar????


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    MadsL wrote: »
    Why U no Atari Jaguar????


    Because I didn't feel like providing a little button for the people that have no opinion on the issue to play with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    An Coilean wrote: »
    As I'm sure most of you are aware by now, Enda wants to abolish the Seanad.

    Personally I think this would be a terrible idea, it wont save any money, it will wreck the constitution and will close off one of the few forums for open debate in the public sphere.

    The referendum is comming so what do ye think, should it be abolished or should it be reformed (and what should that reform look like).

    I tend to agree with you.
    People forget the many instances in which the Seanad has led the way particularly with regard to corruption and also civil rights.
    Shane Ross as a Senator exposed corruption and mismanagment in both Fas and CIE, Mary Robinson in her time there used it as a platform to promote issues of civil rights and to attack the church/state relationship of the day which we now recognise was so harmful.
    In my view this is an attempt by the current government to make a power grab, to close down the only national institution in which independent voices can make themselves heard.
    Reforming the Seanad would be easy:
    Elect the Seanad by universal sufferage.
    Hold Seanad Elections on the same day as Dail elections and do not allow canditates to stand for elections in both chambers.
    End the right of the Taoiseach to nominate senators.
    Allow the Seanad more power in the oversight of, and right to amend legislation.
    What we are currently being asked to do is abolish the Seanad on the promise of Enda Kenny that if we do he will reform the Dail, his promise, nothing else.
    His arguements in favour of abolishing the Seanad do not hold water:
    1) It will save money-but he cannot quantify how much.
    2) Other countries , particularly in Northern Europe have abolished their second chambers- true, but those countries parliments do not work in the same way as ours, they opt less for majority rules and more for consentual decision making through inclusive commitees, further in almost all cases their Presidents, have real political powers, to act as a check against the single chamber.
    The Seanad needs reform not abolition, its abolition should be seen for what it is a pwergrab by FG which will eliminate the one place where independent scrutiny of the Government is really possible, be very carefull before you vote to place all political power in the hands of a Dail which as we have seen is driven by the whip system that brooks no dissent and that smothers independent scrutiny and independent thought.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭fishy fishy


    no, I don't think so.

    Enda wants it all his own way. the seanad needs to be there to keep an eye on him and his cronies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    I would love to get rid of the elitism that is involved on the upper house. All seats should be open to average joes and all voted in by the public.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭The Narrator


    I notice people are saying that we should reform it.

    Would it not be better to abolish it and reform the Dáil?

    If we are going to reform our politics, surely it would be best to reform the house that actually leads the country politically.

    Personally, I think that the vast majority of them (our politicians) are virtually worthless, so I don't see the point in having the two houses.

    The Seanad has for a long time been taken advantage of by the government in power, as a place for those who did not get elected.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    where's the "Leave it as it is" option in the poll.
    not that I'd be of that opinion, but the poll is currently very biased.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,078 ✭✭✭conorhal


    I tend to agree with you.
    People forget the many instances in which the Seanad has led the way particularly with regard to corruption and also civil rights.
    Shane Ross as a Senator exposed corruption and mismanagment in both Fas and CIE, Mary Robinson in her time there used it as a platform to promote issues of civil rights and to attack the church/state relationship of the day which we now recognise was so harmful.
    In my view this is an attempt by the current government to make a power grab, to close down the only national institution in which independent voices can make themselves heard.
    Reforming the Seanad would be easy:
    Elect the Seanad by universal sufferage.
    Hold Seanad Elections on the same day as Dail elections and do not allow canditates to stand for elections in both chambers.
    End the right of the Taoiseach to nominate senators.
    Allow the Seanad more power in the oversight of, and right to amend legislation.
    What we are currently being asked to do is abolish the Seanad on the promise of Enda Kenny that if we do he will reform the Dail, his promise, nothing else.
    His arguements in favour of abolishing the Seanad do not hold water:
    1) It will save money-but he cannot quantify how much.
    2) Other countries , particularly in Northern Europe have abolished their second chambers- true, but those countries parliments do not work in the same way as ours, they opt less for majority rules and more for consentual decision making through inclusive commitees, further in almost all cases their Presidents, have real political powers, to act as a check against the single chamber.
    The Seanad needs reform not abolition, its abolition should be seen for what it is a pwergrab by FG which will eliminate the one place where independent scrutiny of the Government is really possible, be very carefull before you vote to place all political power in the hands of a Dail which as we have seen is driven by the whip system that brooks no dissent and that smothers independent scrutiny and independent thought.

    Excellent and well thought out post.
    The only change I'd make would be to suggest holding Seanad elections at the same time as local elections, that would allow the electorate a mid term opportunity to check the power of a government that swept in on the back of promises that they had no intention of keeping.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Nay

    I'm still looking for the "leave it alone" option.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Nay

    I'm still looking for the "leave it alone" option.


    You don't mind the limited role, the creche/retirement home for politiicians function, the democratic deficit or the almost guarenteed majority for the government of the day through appointments?


  • Posts: 568 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think it is crazy to abolish it. a '€20 million' saving is pittance compared to what the Government spends on other rubbish.

    I got a tour of Leinster House a few years ago; when I was in the Dail, there was 4 or 5 TD's (out of 166 remember) present of which one or two were on their phones and another one was reading out a prepared speech with little enthusiasm and left as soon as he had finished it.

    Then, over in the Seanad, the Senators were very lively and actually cared about what they were talking about. And out of the 60 Senators, over 20 were present.

    The Seanad may be a bit 'useless' but it is the last fail safe if the muppets in the Dail pass a law.

    Senators such as Mary White or David Norris aren't losing their minds because they'll miss their cushy job, it just frightens them that it wouldn't exist.

    I do think it needs to be reformed though. For example, the Taoiseach having some control of who the Senators means that Fine Gael also enjoy having a majority in the Seanad is not fair.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    An Coilean wrote: »
    You don't mind the limited role, the creche/retirement home for politiicians function, the democratic deficit or the almost guarenteed majority for the government of the day through appointments?


    I'd put up with many things if it meant not giving in to that little fuucking dictator from Mayo :P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    no, I don't think so.

    Enda wants it all his own way. the seanad needs to be there to keep an eye on him and his cronies.

    Yeah because the Seanad did a great job of keeping an eye on the last shower that was in power.

    Where was the Seanad the night of the bank guarantee?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    If there was a vote for the Seanad seats, say on the day of the General Election, how would people vote?

    Would they not vote for the same parties as for the Dail, hence it's not really an independt check or balance?

    Or perhaps they'd say I'll vote for FF for the Dail, but FG in the Seanad to keep an eye on them

    Personally I'd scrap it.
    The President is supposed to be able to keep a check on things (although he/she is nominated and supported by political parties too)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    They need to reform it.

    The Dail is dysfunctional and removing the Senate would only serve to make the executive even less accountable then it already is.

    If you want to cut costs, you need to go after the lavish and totally excessive gravy train of political pensions! The Senate is good value in comparison!

    I don't understand the urgency that's being placed on abolition. It's like something you'd expect from a dictatorship!

    Change how the Senate is elected and make it directly accountable to the people on the basis of super constituencies or something like that.

    It would be cheaper to just have a lifetime dictatorship but I don't see anyone suggesting that.

    We need to be damn careful that we don't throw out a large part of our system of checks and balances to save what is actually a pittance compared to what just went into the banks.

    I don't think the Seanad is fit for purpose at all at present but you repair it, you don't bin it!


  • Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I notice people are saying that we should reform it.
    Would it not be better to abolish it and reform the Dáil?
    If we are going to reform our politics, surely it would be best to reform the house that actually leads the country politically.
    Personally, I think that the vast majority of them (our politicians) are virtually worthless, so I don't see the point in having the two houses.
    The Seanad has for a long time been taken advantage of by the government in power, as a place for those who did not get elected.

    I would be in favour of reform of both Dail and Seanad. I would like to see approx 75 to 100 single seat constituencies. This would be overseen by 15 to 20 elected Senators, under the leadership of the President, who would have more powers. All TD's and Senators to serve no more than 2 x 5 year terms. On retirement, they should receive ONE pension only, once they are over the age of 60.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,824 ✭✭✭vitani


    It needs serious reform, but I don't agree with abolition.

    I'd also love to see party politics kept out of the Seanad altogether and just have it be a chamber of qualified, intelligent people who are there because they are passionate about improving this country, and not appointed by the Taoiseach because they lost their seat/didn't get elected/can run fast.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    I would be in favour of reform of both Dail and Seanad. I would like to see approx 75 to 100 single seat constituencies. This would be overseen by 15 to 20 elected Senators, under the leadership of the President, who would have more powers. All TD's and Senators to serve no more than 2 x 5 year terms. On retirement, they should receive ONE pension only, once they are over the age of 60.


    Dear god no, single seat constituencies would be the nail in the coffin of any hopes to get away from parish pump politics.
    Fewer larger constituiencies with more seats is the way to go, more diverse representation in political life as smaller parties have a chance of gaining that fifth or sixth seat and a much larger population per constituency making 'fixing the potholes' on someones road or shaking hands at a funeral much less electorally rewarding.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    No, sorry they had their chance. Many of the current gang of senators have been active in one or other house for decades. Strange how most are only now having a Damascan conversion to the idea of reform. Feels more like most are terrified they'll loose their ticket to power and influence.

    Personally I won't shed any tears if we the people push obnoxious wind bags like Bacik and, Healy Eames closer to the political exit


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,201 ✭✭✭jamesbondings


    Sorry guys. Personally i was never a huge politics person. I have always found it boring etc.

    However last night while watching the news i felt like the abolition of the seaned is clear step to a dictatorship like state.

    The way i seen it (and i could easily be wrong) the dail draw up all the legislation and budgets etc, it is then passed to the upper house where the seaned say yay or nay to it.

    Now if what i said above is true, then what does kenny intend on doing with any future legislation? Ie the majority makes the rules and that's it, or a referendum on every piece of legislation (which obviously isn't feasible)

    I would be wary of one party ruling the land especially with our spineless society in terms of protests or lack there of.

    Please if my view of it all is wrong i apologize and would appreciate any education or corrections

    James


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    tritium wrote: »
    No, sorry they had their chance. Many of the current gang of senators have been active in one or other house for decades. Strange how most are only now having a Damascan conversion to the idea of reform. Feels more like most are terrified they'll loose their ticket to power and influence.

    Thats exactly how I feel. What have they done for us recently? What did they do back in 2009 when the sh1t hit the fan? A recurring argument here is to keep them to "keep an eye on" the current government, but they didn't do a very good job of keeping an eye on Bertie, Cowen and Lenihan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    They've proposed something like 13 reform packages through huge reports.

    And everyone of them was ignored by every government that has ever sat here because it would reduce the power of the executive!

    The Seanad can't implement serious reform unless the government of the day allows it to by passing legislation.

    So to say they've 'had their chance' is quite honestly ridiculous.

    Reform has been blocked, resisted and ignored for decades. Even simple things like extending the university vote to DCU, UL etc was blocked and all the preparatory work was done years ago!

    Google the last Seanad reform report that was put in place by Mary O Rourke when she was Seanad leader in the last senate.

    Huge work was put in and she lobbied in the Dail to get it onto the agenda but it was completely ignored.

    The Dail and the complete lack of interest in serious political structure reforms are at the heart of this problem, not the Seanad.

    The last huge report done by the Seanad itself actually would have turned it into a really decent and useful house! It's not perfect but it put forward some excellent proposals and huge analysis of how other upper houses function.

    The Dail sees the upper house as an annoying check on their power. It's not even the Dail either it's the core of the executive. Most of the time the Dail hardly gets a chance to debate major legislation.

    I'm very, very concerned that we will end up with an even less accountable executive. There's lip service being payed to Dail reform. I think that's where we need to start. It possibly needs to be put on a constitutional level too as the current system is just deeply unhealthy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Sorry guys. Personally i was never a huge politics person. I have always found it boring etc.

    However last night while watching the news i felt like the abolition of the seaned is clear step to a dictatorship like state.

    The way i seen it (and i could easily be wrong) the dail draw up all the legislation and budgets etc, it is then passed to the upper house where the seaned say yay or nay to it.

    Now if what i said above is true, then what does kenny intend on doing with any future legislation? Ie the majority makes the rules and that's it, or a referendum on every piece of legislation (which obviously isn't feasible)

    I would be wary of one party ruling the land especially with our spineless society in terms of protests or lack there of.

    Please if my view of it all is wrong i apologize and would appreciate any education or corrections

    James

    You have it half right. Legislation is drawn up in the Dail, and then voted on in the Dail, and then passed to the Seanad, but they can't veto any bills, they can only delay them. Also, to get as far as the Seanad, it has to be passed in the Dail so if Enda Kenny wanted to pass a bill making Balina the capital, he would still need to get a majority, so the dictatorship analogy is kind of flawed. Also, the Seanad would naturally have a majority of Senators loyal to the Taoiseach as he appoints a number of them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    syklops wrote: »
    You have it half right. Legislation is drawn up in the Dail, and then voted on in the Dail, and then passed to the Seanad, but they can't veto any bills, they can only delay them. Also, to get as far as the Seanad, it has to be passed in the Dail so if Enda Kenny wanted to pass a bill making Balina the capital, he would still need to get a majority, so the dictatorship analogy is kind of flawed. Also, the Seanad would naturally have a majority of Senators loyal to the Taoiseach as he appoints a number of them.

    Actually you aren't quite correct there.

    Either house can initiate a bill. However only the Dail can initiate a 'money bill' (related to finances, tax, major expenditure etc)

    The passage of a bill is simply: Starts in one house, passes then debated by the other house and if not passed can be sent back with amendments and bounced back and forth until it passes.

    After that it goes to the president.

    The Seanad or Dail can vote down a bill and prevent passage. The built in government majority in the Seanad due to the Taoiseach's nominees tends to make this a very unlikely occurrence though.

    The party whip system also means that its virtually impossible to defeat a Government bill in either house unless TDs lose the whip by voting against their own party.

    This makes the Dail rather powerless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. as regards Seanad Éireann. It's just populist tub-thumping from Enda Kenny.

    Just reform the upper house and make it more representative of society and end the elitism/patronage aspect of senatorial election.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Actually you aren't quite correct there.

    Either house can initiate a bill. However only the Dail can initiate a 'money bill' (related to finances, tax, major expenditure etc)

    The passage of a bill is simply: Starts in one house, passes then debated by the other house and if not passed can be sent back with amendments and bounced back and forth until it passes.

    After that it goes to the president.

    The Seanad or Dail can vote down a bill and prevent passage. The built in government majority in the Seanad due to the Taoiseach's nominees tends to make this a very unlikely occurrence though.

    The party whip system also means that its virtually impossible to defeat a Government bill in either house unless TDs lose the whip by voting against their own party.

    This makes the Dail rather powerless.

    Actually AFAIK the Seanad cannot vote down a bill permanantly, if the Dail votes in favour of a bill again after it has been rejected by the Seanad then it goes through, the Seanad has NO veto, the Dail however does.
    Abolishing the Seanad is a sheer folly that will be lead to a power grab by the big Dail Parties, the Dail you can be assured will not be reformed if the Seanad is abolished.
    I say reform the Seanad not abolish it.


Advertisement