Seanad Abolition, Yay or Nay?

An Coilean

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).

The Aussie

Stick up a Poll...


But a Yes for me.

End the cushy number for the boys

Rightwing

Get rid of it.

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

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.

The Backwards Man

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




*always wanted to use that word:pac:

MadsL

Why U no Atari Jaguar????

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

conorhal

Old and grey wrote: »

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.

OldNotWIse

Nay

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

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?

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.

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

syklops

fishy fishy wrote: »

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?

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)

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!

The Narrator

The Narrator wrote: »

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.

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.

An Coilean

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

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

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

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.

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.

syklops

jamesbondings wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

SpaceTime

Old and grey wrote: »

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.

You're right there, they can't flatly veto a bill, but they can certainly create a huge delay or even in certain circumstances kick off a very long-winded process that could potentially (albeit very unlikely) lead to a referendum on a particular bill.

From wiki :

In the event that a bill approved by Dáil Éireann has not received the assent of the Seanad within 90 days, the Dáil may, within a further 180 days, resolve that the measure is "deemed" to have been approved by the Seanad. This has only occurred twice since 1937, once in 1959 when the Seanad rejected the Third Amendment to the Constitution Bill 1958 and again in 1964 when they rejected the Pawnbrokers Bill 1964.
In both instances the Dáil passed the requisite motion deeming the legislation to have been passed.[3]

A money bill, such as the budget, may be deemed to have been approved by the Seanad after 21 days.
In the case of an urgent bill, the time that must have expired before it can be deemed to have been approved by the Seanad may be abridged by the Government (cabinet) with the concurrence of the President (this does not apply to bills to amend the constitution).
The fact that 11 senators are appointed by the Taoiseach usually ensures that the Government, which must have the support of the Dáil, also enjoys a majority in the Seanad.

The constitution does, however, grant to the Seanad certain means by which it may defend its prerogatives against an overly zealous Dáil:

The Seanad may, by a resolution, ask the President to appoint a Committee of Privileges to adjudicate as to whether or not a particular bill is a money bill. The President may, however, refuse this request. This procedure has not initiated since the re-establishment of the Seanad under the current Constitution in 1937.[4]

If a majority of senators and at least one-third of the members of the Dáil present a petition to the President stating that a bill is of great "national importance" the President can decline to sign the bill until it has been 'referred to the people'. This means that he or she can refuse to sign it until it has been approved either in an ordinary referendum or by the Dáil after it has reassembled after a general election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_%C3%89ireann

SpaceTime

Here's a link to the last report on reform of the Seanad :

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/subcomonseanadreform/Report_on_Reform_of_the_Seanad.pdf

It's actually quite readable and presented in a user-friendly style.

There have been 12 reports since 1928, so this will make it the 13th attempt to reform the Seanad, albeit this time by a proposal to abolish it entirely.

Sarky

If it was filled with the people it's supposed to be filled with, and not just mouth-breathers like Ronan Mullen talking out of his arse at every available opportunity, it'd be great. But no, instead we have that moron, we have Fidelma Healy Eames stumbling from one hysterical imagined crisis to the next (not to mention her embarrassing inability to pay for things like motor tax and train tickets), and a whole barrel full of other monkeys, with only a tiny handful of people there actually capable and willing to do the job they're supposed to.

Getting rid of it is a f*cking stupid move. A senate is kind of an important part of a republic. Making the f*ckers in there do their damn jobs, or firing the incompetent ones, would be a far better idea than letting the role of checking government legislation fall on the shoulders of committees appointed at the leisure of the same government.

humanji

A long time ago an unassuming politician was voted into power by people who thought he best represented their interests. And for a while he did. But little did the people realise that he wasn't at all trustworthy and was working for a larger goal. He tricked people into thinking that the senate was useless and needed to be abolished. Assuming he was still on their side, the people agreed.

Then there was nothing standing in his way, he built the Death Star and destroyed Alderaan! History is repeating itself, people. And we can't let that happen!

Reform the Seanad, don't abolish it. Because we can't trust Gilmore to throw Kenny off a walkway.

SpaceTime

I find the whole way the NUI panel runs is a bit of a mess.

First of all the number of people who actually vote on it is an absolutely tiny % of the total number of graduates of the NUI, so most don't bother to even register or update their details.

Then you've got the problem that you get a few bits and piece of random information about the candidates. it's very difficult to decide what their policies or politics are based on a couple of lines of information, most of which seems to be about their profession and qualifications in most cases.

It's a rather quaint idea, that would have made sense when the NUI or even Trinity was a 'community' back in the early part of the 20th century. There must be hundreds of thousands of people potentially eligible to register.

Even the TCD constituency is absolutely enormous if everyone who could register did.

I would really rather that they just ditched the idea of university senators entirely and perhaps moved towards something like having them drawn from some kind of directly-elected super constituencies.

Maybe run a Seanad election alongside the European elections using the same constituencies and have a group who are also drawn from a national constituency who stand for the whole country and are elected by everyone?

It should serve as some kind of a balance that takes counters the parochial make up of the Dail.

I just think with the NUI constituency in particular, it's very easy for a vocal minority to get somoene elected.

enda1

I think the Seanad elections should be offset by two years from the Dáil. Otherwise I'd agree with a lot of what Old and grey said.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

The Seanad has to vote on its own abolition tonight, looks like several FG/Lab senators may vote against the Government, should be interesting.

Phill Ewinn

Seen this on the TV. The Taoiseach will gain a massive majority in the main house, then work toward absolute Power by abolishing the Senate. Some other stuff happens and the Taoiseachs apprentice becomes this kind of black robot dude with a real cool sword and a giant death star.

All ahead of us....

ectoraige

syklops wrote: »

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?

It wouldn't matter where it was, because it is unable to act as a counter-balance to the Dáil. Clearly the night of the bank guarantee demonstrates we CANNOT trust Dáil Eireann to always act in our interest, we need to give the second house enough powers to prevent such a travesty.

A vote for Abolition says you trust the Dáil to do the right thing.

ectoraige

The Narrator wrote: »

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.

While I prefer a two-house system, I could live with the abolition of the Seanad if it was part of the implementation of wider political reforms. However, what is happening is Enda Kenny is only promising to look at Dáil reforms later. We've seen twelve reports go by unimplemented into Seanad reform, does anybody really believe Dáil reform will happen *after* the Seanad is gone? If Enda Kenny is really serious about reform, he needs to present a complete package of Dáil & Seanad reform, and commit to full implementation before calling any referendum.

ectoraige

syklops wrote: »

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.

Which is why REFORM is needed. The Seanad in it's current form pays lip-service to the notion of "keeping an eye" on the Dáil, to just get rid of it and blindly put all faith in Dáil Eireann is complete lunacy.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

syklops wrote: »

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.

Actually it was the Seanad that highlighted the corruption and mismanagment of Fas and the CIE during the Cowen and Ahern era, and the Seanad that highlighted the political cronyism in both those organizations.

Agricola

If reform was an option in October, I'd probably vote for it over abolition. In its present form its serves next to no purpose as far as I can see. Just a platform for people who love the sound of their own voice. Politicians tend to boil down to people with real ability and spoofers. The Senate to me has always had a much higher percentage of the latter.

ectoraige

keeponhurling wrote: »

The President is supposed to be able to keep a check on things (although he/she is nominated and supported by political parties too)

The President is only supposed to make sure that laws being passed adhere to the constitution. It is not his role to ensure that the laws represent the right strategy for the country, that is left to the Dáil. Hell, he can't even make a speech without having it cleared by the Government.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Single-seat constituencies would be a disaster - you end up with US vs. THEM systems with little consensus. Fewer constituencies with more representatives would suit us far better. We could base constituencies on the existing Regional Assembly structure, with about twelve 6-10 seater constituencies for say 99 TDs, 1 per 50,000 of population.

I do like that the Séanad isn't based on geographical constituencies, an idea would be to keep this aspect but to have the constituencies aligned with Government departments. People could then register in their constituency of greatest interest i.e. I might vote on a candidate for Education and Skills, you might register for the Justice & Equality panel. With 5 Senators per panel, you'd end up with five people deemed knowledgeable shadowing the work of a department and keenly aware of the legislation being considered in their area.

I do like the idea of limiting the number of terms they may serve though, with two-term limits per job, career politicians worth their weight could still notch up 44 years service from the councils, through the Dáil & Seanad, and finally the Presidency.

ectoraige

Agricola wrote: »

If reform was an option in October, I'd probably vote for it over abolition. In its present form its serves next to no purpose as far as I can see. Just a platform for people who love the sound of their own voice. Politicians tend to boil down to people with real ability and spoofers. The Senate to me has always had a much higher percentage of the latter.

Enda Kenny is asking a loaded question - by only giving us abolition as an option he's continuing the long tradition of the Dáil refusing to cede any powers to the Seanad despite report after report recommending this to be the best thing to do in the interest of Irish democracy. We need to reject any abolition and insist that reform come onto the agenda.

Yakult

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51fGHV6ViAk

kidneyfan

ectoraige wrote: »

Enda Kenny is asking a loaded question - by only giving us abolition as an option he's continuing the long tradition of the Dáil refusing to cede any powers to the Seanad despite report after report recommending this to be the best thing to do in the interest of Irish democracy. We need to reject any abolition and insist that reform come onto the agenda.

reform will never come onto the agenda.
You can abolish it or keep it as is.

sdanseo

From the Oireachtas Website:

The fact that a Dáil Bill must be examined also by Seanad Éireann is a safeguard against legislation being enacted too quickly.

I could launch into a huge ramble of reasons why I think we need the Seanad, but I feel that sums up the gist. It needs to stay.

Yes, it's a puppet in that it will almost always pass a bill because of its composition being biased by the government. Yes, it's probably much less effective than it could be.

That doesn't mean we need to wipe it from existence. Reform it, make it more effective. It protects us, even if only a little, from bad legislation. Not only that, but it doesn't need to vote against or strike down a bill or make the papers to have an effect - the Seanad can simply amend bills and send them back to the Dáil and that, in the normal course of events, rarely makes the news but can make a huge difference.

We need to keep it, and I'm terrified that those who are brainwashed by the government's promise of €20m saved will come in their droves and do away with the only safeguard we have against the more common event of the Government passing bad legislation despite with good intentions. I'm horribly afraid that people who are uneducated about the Seanad and don't know - or even care - about its existence will simply see the € symbols and vote to remove it like sheep.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Very few people realise that according to the Constitution (Article 16.3.2) a general election is only required to held not less than every seven years, it is an act of the Oireachtas that set the current five year limit.
Of course once Enda has his way and Abolishes the Seanad he can enact a Dail Bill to extend his stay in office until 2018! With the Government majority who will stop him.

Phill Ewinn

Old and grey wrote: »

Very few people realise that according to the Constitution (Article 16.3.2) a general election is only required to held not less than every seven years, it is an act of the Oireachtas that set the current five year limit.
Of course once Enda has his way and Abolishes the Seanad he can enact a Dail Bill to extend his stay in office until 2018! With the Government majority who will stop him.

I couldn't stop them last time. The problem with the country is the electorate not the elected.

Abolish the senate.

Might as well.