Abolishment of the Seaned on the agenda for March

I say get rid of it. The Seanad serves no practical purpose in its present form. Democratic accountability can be much more effective by increasing the powers of dail oversight committees as well as introducing a requirement of important bills such as introducing the budget, treaties, etc be passed by super majority. For example, at least 75% of all deputies would be required to approve the passing of a budget.

As I've said many times on here before, I'm all for abolishing the Seanad - as long as there are substantial reforms made to the Dáil to give it real powers to legislate and scrutinise the government of the day.

Ireland is unique in Europe as it is the only small (in terms of area and population), unitary (as opposed to federal, like Switzerland or Austria) state with a second chamber. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Portugal and, further afield, New Zealand all have unicameral parliaments and still manage to function - I would argue that they do a better job with one chamber than we do with two.

Should we abolish the Seanad (and let's face it, a referendum is inevitable and now seems to have all-party support), we need to fundamentally reform the rest of the political system at national and local level.

First of all, reform of the Dáil committees. Dáil committees need to have some teeth (even if we don't abolish the Seanad). They also need to be free from government interference. One way that this can be done is by giving committee chairs to parties based on the D'Hondt system (based on the numbers they have in the Dáil) and random allocation of seats (although possibly allow for those with specialist skills to sit in the appropriate committee, e.g. a solicitor or barrister in Justice). Committees should have the power to determine their own agenda, enact legislation, review government legislation, and compel witnesses to attend enquiries and demand documents from any government body or department.

Secondly, a proper separation of powers needs to be introduced. No member of the cabinet should sit in the Dáil, but still be directly accountable to it. This happens in Norway and the Netherlands, where, if a member of Parliament is 'promoted' to cabinet they automatically sacrifice their seat (and are replaced by the next person in that party's list, but that's electoral reform). This has three main effects - first, the cabinet should (in theory anyway) have a more national focus as they are not tied to a constituency; second, it allows the government to bring in specialist outsiders with real skills in a given area (like the U.S. cabinet); and third, it reduces the ability of the government to dominate the Dáil. It is important that any member of the cabinet should be directly accountable to the Dáil, whether it be the chamber as a whole or the relevant committee - so 'question time' should definitely remain.

Next is reform of the electoral system. The number of TDs needs to be reduced, even if we don't change the system from PR-STV. I would suggest 100 TDs, as this is a nice round number. Next, we need some aspect of a list to bring in TDs with a national focus, whether it is a minority, half or a majority of TDs elected this way. My own preference would be for a national list system for electing all TDs (like in the Netherlands), whereby if a party gets 1% of the vote, they get one seat. However, I feel that this is unlikely due to people wanting 'our rep up in Dublin'. The most likely system would be some form of MMP (like in Germany or New Zealand, which combines FPTP with a list), although I would go further and have half of TDs elected by STV (in much larger constituencies) and the other half by a list to ensure proportionality. At the very least, if the system is not changed, we need much bigger constituencies - STV is most effective (in terms of proportionality) with more seats; every constituency should have at least 5 seats (not 3, which in rural areas means that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael usually dominate).

Following on from this, local government, as it stands, needs to be completely scrapped and replaced. We need a local government system that has real powers, crucially the power to raise its own revenue and not be dependent on central government for hand outs. A two-tier system of regions and municipalities (like most other European countries) would be best. The regions would be based around the cities/largest towns (like the current regions), while below them the municipalities would be based around towns (or in some areas, groups of islands or other geographic features) within the regions, similar to the District Councils in Northern Ireland. The regions and municipalities would be given their own responsibilities (e.g. regional roads, public transport, hospitals, tourism, water supply, etc. in the regions; local roads, primary and secondary education, libraries, swimming pools, primary health care, parks, etc. in the municipalities). Some areas (such as tertiary education) would be shared with national government but most of its focus would be on issues of national importance - justice, natural resources, international relations, the economy, etc. Local government would be able to raise their own revenue through tax, including property taxes and by taking a share of income tax and VAT raised in their area (or even, as in the Nordic countries, by being able to raise income tax within limits). Both regions and municipalities would have directly elected 'assemblies' as well as 'mayors' with real powers. The main effect of this is allowing national politicians to care about national issues. Got a pothole in your road? Go to the municipality. Problems with your social welfare application? Go to the regional government.

So, in short, I support the abolition of the Seanad - if we abolish most of the rest our political system and start again.

Vest the powers of the Seanad in the President. For anything he or she wishes to challenge or further debate the Council of State must be convened (similar to before Christmas) It is mainly comprised of those retired from politics and gives the government of the day a chance to have its say too.

It gives legitimacy to the President, though it politicises the office.

But what would you need from a Norwegian MP, for example, that would require you to contact them?

bleg wrote: »

They're getting rid of the Senate so it looks like they're implementing political change without implementing any at all.

What's worse is that there are people out there who will vote in large numbers agreeing without actually seeing the consequences.

It suits the Dáil to have no Seanad, it doesn't suit anyone else.

http://www.politics.ie/fianna-fail/41470-fianna-fail-senators-bizarre-fillibuster-harbours-bill-3.html

JustinDee wrote: »

If you like red-tape and barriers when trying to contact a local representitive then no.
However, in my experience (requesting assistance with my better half's illness), at the end of the day it certainly doesn't shine any lights over the system here....

I'm never happy to hear of people in difficulty, and am sorry that you had a bad experience.

But I think it wrong that access to state services or support should be mediated by politicians. It distracts politicians from doing their work of representing people more generally, and as legislators; it can clog up administrative procedures; it can result in queue-jumping; it can be a form of petty corruption.