Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Seanad Abolition, Yay or Nay?

1356

Comments

  • #62
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,299 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    I predict that if it is abolished then no one will miss it.

    You won't be saying that when the Dáíl starts passing bills with absolutely no-one to even question them. It's like taking the seatbelts out of a car.


  • #63
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


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

    Why not? We thought abortion would never come onto the agenda either. A defeat for the government would be embarrassing for the Government and there would be plenty of opportunity then for reformers to be heard.

    Honestly, that's a terribly defeatist position to hold - "sure, we won't get what we want, so we might as well let them do whatever they want". One might as well never vote on anything again with that attitude.


  • #64
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I couldn't stop them last time. The problem with the country is the electorate not the elected.

    Abolish the senate.

    Might as well.

    No, the problem is with the system in which the electorate participate. That's why it needs to be reformed. Abolishing the Seanad without reform only makes the system worse than it is.


  • #65
    JuliusCaesar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,886 ✭✭✭JuliusCaesar


    The Senate needs to go back to what it is supposed to be. Unfortunately it became a home for retired pols.

    It needs to be a place of intellect, a place where the deeds of the (mostly intellectually challenged) TDs can be halted and pondered.

    Not a place that just rubber-stamps the deeds of their pals.


  • #66
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    JuliusCaesar wrote: »

    Not a place that just rubber-stamps the deeds of their pals.

    Which is the problem we're having. Abolish the bluddy thing. Reform the courts and remove the whip system. Right now all we have is a shambles of democracy some Islamiǩ fundamentalist type would be proud of.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    squod wrote: »
    Which is the problem we're having. Abolish the bluddy thing. Reform the courts and remove the whip system. Right now all we have is a shambles of democracy some Islamiǩ fundamentalist type would be proud of.

    Who exactly are you expecting to do this? Surely you havent bought Endas promise of Dáil reform if the Seanad goes?


  • #68
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    rugbyman wrote: »
    I intend to vote for abolition.
    ...
    It is ,imo ,completely wrong to ask the question, abolition or reform! they are not alternatives
    It should have been reform or no reform, leading on to , abolish or not abolish

    If it's the wrong question, reject it so they can ask the right question next time.
    Dostoevsky wrote: »
    Eoghan Harris & Marie Louise O'Donnell ==> two exceptional reasons why this horrendous institution should never exist. Two people appointed, and given over €100k per annum, because they came out on RTÉ and supported Bertie Ahern and Enda Kenny respectively. And don't even mention the university votes. Morally reprehensible.
    That's not due to having a second house, that's due to the way it is instituted.
    Dostoevsky wrote: »
    ... question is what does Kenny propose to replace it? Whatever it is couldn't be worse than this abysmal institution. Get rid of it, and then find some replacement which cannot be a simple "jobs for the boys" place...

    And what if they replace it with something worse? If they want to abolish the Seanad, it must be as a part of wider reforms, simply abolishing it won't fix the political system here. Allowing them to do so and then point to it as an accomplishment would be a travesty which would never be undone.
    theSHU wrote: »
    We need to get rid of it. We also need to cut the number of TD's, cull the number of councillors and county councils and move away from proportional voting that only gears towards village pump politics.
    If the Seanad is abolished, I don't think anything else will happen - if reform is mentioned, they'll just point to the abolition of the Seanad as proof of their commitment to reform, and not actually do anything.
    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    I predict that if it is abolished then no one will miss it.

    I'll miss it, so your prediction is without merit.


  • #69
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    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.

    Comments like this are just stupid. Enda Kenny has a majority in the Seanad as it stands. The Seanad itself is not standing in his way of doing what you suggest. In fact your comment serves as an example of why the Seanad needs to either go, or be heavily reformed. If Enda Kenny wanted to do as you say, the Seanad isn't standing in his way.


  • #70
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    An Coilean wrote: »
    Who exactly are you expecting to do this? Surely you havent bought Endas promise of Dáil reform if the Seanad goes?

    I'm expecting aliens will save us from ourselves, or something.


  • #71
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    squod wrote: »
    I'm expecting aliens will save us from ourselves, or something.

    Little known fact about aliens - they only impose their iron will on countries with bicameral political systems. That's why so many alien-invasion movies are set in the US. If we do away with the Seanad, the aliens will never save us from ourselves. Fact.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    syklops wrote: »
    Comments like this are just stupid. Enda Kenny has a majority in the Seanad as it stands. The Seanad itself is not standing in his way of doing what you suggest. In fact your comment serves as an example of why the Seanad needs to either go, or be heavily reformed. If Enda Kenny wanted to do as you say, the Seanad isn't standing in his way.

    You sound like Bertie telling those of us who didn't believe in his false boom to "do away with ourselves".


  • #73
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Old and grey wrote: »
    You sound like Bertie telling those of us who didn't believe in his false boom to "do away with ourselves".

    Bizarre comment.

    That poster suggested that Enda Kenny wants to get rid of the Seanad so he can bring in Legislation to extend his term of office. My point was, if he wanted to do that the Seanad is not standing in his way as he has a majority in there.


  • #74
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Cart before horse.

    Reform the Dail first! Then and only then would abolishing the Seanad be possible.


  • #75
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    I was toying with the pros and cons of the Seanad/Senate or whatever else you want to call it but my mind was made up the other day. I want to see it gone.

    From the next room the other night, I hear the strains of Pat Shortt and Killinaskully on the TV and go into the TV room to see instead the real life version with some ultra culchie senator (who I can't remember the name of) playing political football. He out Willied Willie Power, only this was real NOT acting. The conclusion I came to is that Killinaskully is not just a comedy series, it is the depiction of real life in Ireland incl. government!

    If that was not enough (at least it was funny!), what came next was scary. David Norris and his sexist and ranting diatribe. Norris' shouting would go down well in a Nazi or Taliban parliament and was about as uncouth as one can get without being funny. The man was angry, insulting, nasty and pointless all in one.

    Now I recall a few years ago Pat Shortt doing his Maurice Hickey routine with Hickey becoming a senator. Guess who was showing him around the place once he arrrives? David Norris!! Well, this week we got it again - but for real this time!


  • #76
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    I predict that if it is abolished then no one will miss it.

    The Seanad, the Dail and how Irish politics is done in general should be abolished. Who needs David Norris roaring and shouting thinking he is Adolf Hitler (if he was elected president, Ireland could have become the new Third Reich!! At least when it comes to shouting presidents if anything else!). Or some culchie making smart comments akin to Killinaskully? That's what I heard the other day and I guess that is what goes on in that useless parliament every day. The Dail too is no better with its bunch of smart a's who prefer to exchange hostile comments to rival parties than to govern.

    If they want to be comedians, then they should leave the parliament! And David Norris should know better.


  • #77
    ectoraige
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    The Seanad, the Dail and how Irish politics is done in general should be abolished.

    I understand your frustration and a desire for something better. However, just abolishing the Seanad is not an improvement, and if passed, would likely be the only 'reform' of the system for the next fifty years. Anytime genuine reform is mentioned, they will just point to the abolition of the Seanad and say, "Ah sure, didn't we do the whole reforming thing already".

    If you want real changes, which I think you do, then abolishing the Seanad isn't the way forward - unless it is part of a complete package of reforms. Standalone abolition must be rejected.


  • #78
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    ectoraige wrote: »
    I understand your frustration and a desire for something better. However, just abolishing the Seanad is not an improvement, and if passed, would likely be the only 'reform' of the system for the next fifty years. Anytime genuine reform is mentioned, they will just point to the abolition of the Seanad and say, "Ah sure, didn't we do the whole reforming thing already".

    If you want real changes, which I think you do, then abolishing the Seanad isn't the way forward - unless it is part of a complete package of reforms. Standalone abolition must be rejected.

    That is true. I also prefer the word reform to abolish here as well. I can see this point too: they could abolish the Seanad and then continue on as before. But it is the whole thing that needs change. Here are some of the changes we really need:

    1. Expenses and salaries should be reduced.
    2. A more caring approach adopted.
    3. The calibre of politicians in general at present is very poor: better candidates are required.
    4. Civil war politics should be avoided.
    5. Political debate should be replaced by think tanks and idea generations/brain storming.
    6. Politicians should be working 95% of their time in their constituencies to solve people's problems and NOT lazing around in the Dail talking rubbish and making smart comments.


  • #79
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    That is true. I also prefer the word reform to abolish here as well. I can see this point too: they could abolish the Seanad and then continue on as before. But it is the whole thing that needs change. Here are some of the changes we really need:

    1. Expenses and salaries should be reduced.
    2. A more caring approach adopted.
    3. The calibre of politicians in general at present is very poor: better candidates are required.
    4. Civil war politics should be avoided.
    5. Political debate should be replaced by think tanks and idea generations/brain storming.
    6. Politicians should be working 95% of their time in their constituencies to solve people's problems and NOT lazing around in the Dail talking rubbish and making smart comments.

    Re your points one and three how do you think you are going to get high calibre politicians if you are firstly going to reduce their pay and expenses?:confused:


  • #80
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    Old and grey wrote: »
    Re your points one and three how do you think you are going to get high calibre politicians if you are firstly going to reduce their pay and expenses?:confused:

    Shouldn't genuine politicians be motivated by more than money?

    Anyhow, even with their current very high salaries, the calibre remains poor. In fact, the higher they have been paid, the poorer they have become (abilitywise that is not moneywise)!

    If we are paying anyone big money, they should be worth it. Are people who sit around making smart putdown comments to each other all day worth all they are getting? No.


  • #81
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    Shouldn't genuine politicians be motivated by more than money? Maybe, but if you want talent and brains then they do cost, why take a risky job in politics if you can have a well paid job in the private sector as a doctor,lawyer etc

    Anyhow, even with their current very high salaries, the calibre remains poor. In fact, the higher they have been paid, the poorer they have become (abilitywise that is not moneywise)! Totally agree!

    If we are paying anyone big money, they should be worth it. Are people who sit around making smart putdown comments to each other all day worth all they are getting? No.
    It is their own fault that they are seen in that light but actually they spend more time in commitees etc than they do slagging each other off in the chamber. That has more to do with playing to the cameras than anything else.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    vitani
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,824 ✭✭✭vitani


    Old and grey wrote: »
    Re your points one and three how do you think you are going to get high calibre politicians if you are firstly going to reduce their pay and expenses?:confused:

    The ones motivated mainly by money might go elsewhere.


  • #83
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    Old and grey wrote: »
    It is their own fault that they are seen in that light but actually they spend more time in commitees etc than they do slagging each other off in the chamber. That has more to do with playing to the cameras than anything else.

    When they are on the camera's focus, they should choose their statements and language used more carefully. Tony Mulcahy belongs in Killinaskully and David Norris was like Hitler. The fact that he used a certain word very often is unfitting of the kind of dialogue you would expect from a Joyce scholar, Trinity teacher and experienced senator who is educated.

    The problem is also that what is usually considered to be slanderous, defamatory insults are legal in parliament. The fact that it is allowed shows the true characters of these people. One reform I'd like to see is making over the top attacks like this illegal. Norris could have disagreed in a nice way instead of going all Hitler.


  • #84
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    "BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    Norris could have disagreed in a nice way instead of going all Hitler.

    Can't call Norris Hitler. He's a socialist, a reformist, a nationalist, shuns female relationships, has ridiculous facial hair, is very opinionated and gives long shouty speeches.

    No similarities there at all.


  • #85
    dublinman1990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,492 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    Personally; the way I see that Irish Politics is run when I watch them particularly in the Dail now is an complete & utter joke. They have no positive contributions to make in that chamber in I which see it as a complete failure to do it's job properly.

    I feel that if the Seanad was rejected by the Irish People on the 4th of October; it would as act a big move of regret by our electorate if it wasn't even considered for reform. Having the Dail as the sole parliament in this state would be a major coup for Enda Kenny which I don't see as particularly healthy because many people living here would see it as a lost cause.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0723/464148-seanad/

    I had taken tours of the Dail & Seanad twice before when I was in primary school when in 2002 & 2003.

    I thought the performance of the Dail at the time when FF/PD was in power was very average to poor at times in the way that their policies was communicated during the boom.

    The Seanad however was a lot more engaging from most of them who sat there at the time. It was also very engaging in terms of the content being discussed there meaning the atmosphere was still lively & also very positive to make a contribution.

    The people here need to learn nowadays that you will might get very little return from the Government if you reject the Seanad straight away.

    I will ask the people here that if you believe that Senator Fergal Quinn's words that the removal of the Seanad will have a total of over 70 changes done to our Constitution is correct; than why argue for it's abolition?

    In my opinion; if the Constitutional Convention wasn't enough to cover the loss of the Seanad; it will take us a fair number of years to actually change the Constitution with very little or no value.

    It would just feel inappropriate for me abolish it because I feel it would be considered a farce to replacing it.


  • #86
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    dublinman1990 wrote: »

    It would just feel inappropriate for me abolish it because I feel it would be considered a farce to replacing it.

    We got absolutely fuhked over by Parliament, the senate, the judiciary, the President, the Dept. of Finance and the police in this country in Sept 2008. We're still paying for it now.

    No-one is going to jail yet.

    Getting rid of the senate might seem like a smart move by Edna in the short term. But it will only back-fire. No-one gets away scot free forever. Him and Cowen will get theirs. Those who backed them too.


  • #87
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    squod wrote: »
    We got absolutely fuhked over by Parliament, the senate, the judiciary, the President, the Dept. of Finance and the police in this country in Sept 2008. We're still paying for it now.

    No-one is going to jail yet.

    Getting rid of the senate might seem like a smart move by Edna in the short term. But it will only back-fire. No-one gets away scot free forever. Him and Cowen will get theirs. Those who backed them too.

    What a load of utter bolloccks!
    How the hell did the then President, the Gardai, and the Judiciary fcuk us over in 2008?
    Go on explain it to me, I am having a tough day and really need a laugh.


  • #88
    dublinman1990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,492 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    squod wrote: »
    We got absolutely fuhked over by Parliament, the senate, the judiciary, the President, the Dept. of Finance and the police in this country in Sept 2008. We're still paying for it now.

    No-one is going to jail yet.

    Getting rid of the senate might seem like a smart move by Edna in the short term. But it will only back-fire. No-one gets away scot free forever. Him and Cowen will get theirs. Those who backed them too.

    How particularly did the Gardaí & Judiciary screwed us over in 2008?

    My take on it is they have no role to represent themselves as a Government mouthpiece as they have separation of powers within this state.

    Also; the attempt to abolish the Seanad may seem smart from Enda's point of view but the people may reject it in an instant as the Seanad is something they would see as a generally positive contribution to the workings of Irish Society.

    I would love to read what you write up as a defence. I am dying for a laugh as well.


  • #89
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    Must admit,I'm all for less politicians suckling at the teet of Hibernia, and once the seanad goes,hopefully the voters of Ireland will vociferously demand less TD's also,lots less.


  • #90
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    crockholm wrote: »
    Must admit,I'm all for less politicians suckling at the teet of Hibernia, and once the seanad goes,hopefully the voters of Ireland will vociferously demand less TD's also,lots less.

    Yes and of course TD's will agree to do that!
    turkeys dont vote for Christmas, once the Seanad is gone there will be no Dail reform and Indan Eamo will tell us how we need more TD's because of the Dails new expanded role!


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    Old and grey wrote: »
    Yes and of course TD's will agree to do that!
    turkeys dont vote for Christmas, once the Seanad is gone there will be no Dail reform and Indan Eamo will tell us how we need more TD's because of the Dails new expanded role!

    Then,no doubt,it will be pointed out that Canada and New Zealand can function properly with less representatives per 100,000 of population.

    Demand it in large numbers,vote for those who promise it,if they don't try-kick the bums out-the strength and weakness of democracy all rolled into one.


Advertisement
Advertisement