Campaign to save the Seanad launched

spank_inferno · 15-06-2013 1:57pm

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

It's not just TD's in the Dail who are cynically playing the local issues game. There are people in The Seanad who are blatantly using their position as a stepping stone to The Dail by doing the same thing. There's a particular Senator, and if you check out their Facebook page, they constantly drone on about how they've fixed potholes and road signage in a certain area. I won't mention the name of this person but their motives for being in the Seanad are utterly cynical. Yet another reason to close the place down and throw away the keys.

Why not name them?
Naming a senator you think is porochial will hardly rush the lawyers into Boards.ie offices.

Good loser · 16-06-2013 10:29pm

Calling for reform rather than abolition is a smart tactic which shunts the 'don't knows' into the anti camp.

Later in the campaign we'll have if you don't know vote no. When, of course, in logic the call would be if you don't know don't vote.

Imo the Senate got it's chances over 70 years and has been a failure. This is decision time and I'm for abolition.

If there was no Senate and this was a (crazy) proposal to intoduce one what % would vote for it?

Javan · 17-06-2013 12:14pm

Good loser wrote: »

Calling for reform rather than abolition is a smart tactic which shunts the 'don't knows' into the anti camp.

Later in the campaign we'll have if you don't know vote no. When, of course, in logic the call would be if you don't know don't vote.

Imo the Senate got it's chances over 70 years and has been a failure. This is decision time and I'm for abolition.

If there was no Senate and this was a (crazy) proposal to intoduce one what % would vote for it?

Calling for reform rather than abolition is not a tactic; it is the honest opinion of a great many people that reform would give a much better result than abolition.

Why do say the Seanad has been a failure? As I pointed out earlier in the thread it has has proposed hundreds of amendments to bills just in this term. Those amendments have the likely impact of reducing ongoing costs and legal challenges. To me that sounds like effective (if unglamorous) work.

The first purpose of the Oireachtas (both houses) is to set policy and legislate. The record of the current Oireachtas is that the Dail alone would produce some really bad law and the Seanad has been effective in noticing some of that and improving the bills.

A challenge to you and to everyone who would propose abolition of the Seanad: Explain how abolishing the upper house will give us better law in the future. (note: better, not cheaper.)

Good loser · 20-06-2013 1:19am

Javan wrote: »

Calling for reform rather than abolition is not a tactic; it is the honest opinion of a great many people that reform would give a much better result than abolition.

Why do say the Seanad has been a failure? As I pointed out earlier in the thread it has has proposed hundreds of amendments to bills just in this term. Those amendments have the likely impact of reducing ongoing costs and legal challenges. To me that sounds like effective (if unglamorous) work.

The first purpose of the Oireachtas (both houses) is to set policy and legislate. The record of the current Oireachtas is that the Dail alone would produce some really bad law and the Seanad has been effective in noticing some of that and improving the bills.

A challenge to you and to everyone who would propose abolition of the Seanad: Explain how abolishing the upper house will give us better law in the future. (note: better, not cheaper.)

They catch a few points and miss hundreds.

Couldn't a few retired judges earn their pensions by studying the bills?

Has any unicamarel country introduced a second chamber in recent times? The 2 chamber idea probably came from the US where they had to have one because they were uniting independent states. The British had one for historical reasons - monarch, lords and commons.

If it's good enough for NZ etc.

Javan · 20-06-2013 8:37am

Good loser wrote: »

They catch a few points and miss hundreds.

Couldn't a few retired judges earn their pensions by studying the bills?

Has any unicamarel country introduced a second chamber in recent times? The 2 chamber idea probably came from the US where they had to have one because they were uniting independent states. The British had one for historical reasons - monarch, lords and commons.

If it's good enough for NZ etc.

Actually they catch hundreds of points. About 550 so far this term, including some very important ones.
Possibly some retired judges could take on that role, though it would lead to an interesting discussion about separation of roles. But with that suggestion you are talking about reform and we seem to be all agreed that reform would be a better option than abolition (if it were an option on the table).

The Andhra Pradesh legislature in India became bicameral in 2007, so there is at least one example of a unicameral government becoming bicameral in recent times.

A unicameral parliament is in place in New Zealand and many other places. So what? There are many different systems of government that work in many different places.
As recently as 2011 there was a debate in New Zealand about re-introducing a Senate as part of an election reform referendum, so clearly at least some people there believe the unicameral system is not good enough.

There is nothing in what you have said that suggests Ireland would have better government or better laws after abolishing the Seanad.

View · 20-06-2013 9:25am

Javan wrote: »

Calling for reform rather than abolition is not a tactic; it is the honest opinion of a great many people that reform would give a much better result than abolition.

It is a tactic as reform is not on the agenda, only abolition is.

The choice is between:
A) abolition, and,

the status quo - the current unreformed Seanad.

spank_inferno · 20-06-2013 7:51pm

View wrote: »

It is a tactic as reform is not on the agenda, only abolition is.

The choice is between:
A) abolition, and,
the status quo - the current unreformed Seanad.

Exactly.

Calling for reform is irrelevent as it is not going to happen & its not a choice.

Might as well demand for strawberries & cream along with Senate reform for all the difference it would make.

Pete_Cavan · 20-06-2013 8:20pm

If reform of the Seanad wont happen, reform of the Dail certainly wont happen - and the Dail is where reform in most badly needed. Abolishing the Seanad just papers over the cracks and does nothing to improve our system of government in any way, shape or form. We are still left with the same old Dail with all its problems, only now it has even greater power so the problems have gotten worse. I would be all for abolishing the Seanad if we also got real, effective Dail reform but that is not going to happen. I the absence of Dail reform we are better off with a second chamber.

Javan · 20-06-2013 8:49pm

View wrote: »

It is a tactic as reform is not on the agenda, only abolition is.

The choice is between:
A) abolition, and,
the status quo - the current unreformed Seanad.

If you read my posts on this thread you will see that I have consistently said that, while I would prefer to have the option of reform, it is not an option that is available.
It is interesting to discuss reform options, but they are basically irrelevant. I would not characterise that as a 'tactic' so much as having an honest discussion.

In any case it makes the question before us very simple. As you say the options are: no Seanad or no change.

This also makes the decision very easy; no Seanad would leave us with a worse government while no change would not.

View · 20-06-2013 9:11pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If reform of the Seanad wont happen, reform of the Dail certainly wont happen

The members of the Dail are free to reform it anytime they want to do so.

Voting on the proposed abolition of the Seanad doesn't impact that in the slightest.

What would impact the likelihood of seeing either or both houses of the Oireachtas reformed would be the election of people dedicated to such reform. That is something the electorate is free to do in any election should they consider it desirable.

View · 20-06-2013 9:22pm

Javan wrote: »

This also makes the decision very easy; no Seanad would leave us with a worse government while no change would not.

The existence of the Seanad doesn't impact the government at all since no members of it are drawn from the ranks of the Seanad.

Nor does it have any meaningful impact on legislation. The Seanad can't force the amendment of any legislation should the Dail set its face against it.

BuilderPlumber · 25-07-2013 12:53am

I think the whole system needs reform. Abolishing the Seanad does not solve this. Politics in Ireland is way too orientated around point scoring and making the rival party look bad rather than doing what is right for the country. There is way too much opposing and/or defending individuals and parties, resulting in endless useless debates meaning that nothing helpful is done.

Anyone who viewed last weeks' circus in the Seanad would immediately say that this needs to be abolished! And rightly so. Tony Mulcahy was like something straight out of Killinaskully. More sinister, David Norris' insulting rant showed a maniac bordering on insanity with a parliamentary style modelled on Adolf Hitler.

However, this is NOT only typical of the Seanad but the Dail as well! Ireland is poorly governed because of this debate-orientated parliamentary approach where sticking to the party line and making sure you shout down your opponents is the most important thing to do.

Until we abolish this from ALL Irish politics, true reform will never take hold.

Harry Angstrom · 25-07-2013 8:20am

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think the whole system needs reform. Abolishing the Seanad does not solve this. Politics in Ireland is way too orientated around point scoring and making the rival party look bad rather than doing what is right for the country. There is way too much opposing and/or defending individuals and parties, resulting in endless useless debates meaning that nothing helpful is done.

Anyone who viewed last weeks' circus in the Seanad would immediately say that this needs to be abolished! And rightly so. Tony Mulcahy was like something straight out of Killinaskully. More sinister, David Norris' insulting rant showed a maniac bordering on insanity with a parliamentary style modelled on Adolf Hitler.

However, this is NOT only typical of the Seanad but the Dail as well! Ireland is poorly governed because of this debate-orientated parliamentary approach where sticking to the party line and making sure you shout down your opponents is the most important thing to do.

Until we abolish this from ALL Irish politics, true reform will never take hold.

At least the general public have the chance of getting rid of them from the Dail. It's much tougher to get rid of them from The Seanad on account of the fact that it is a completely undemocratic institution. There won't be any reform of The Seanad. If people vote to retain it, the same old status quo will continue.

PRAF · 25-07-2013 10:30am

I'm still very much undecided about the Seanad. However, one thing I'm pretty sure about is that the question of whether to keep it or not is largely irrelevant to the future well being of the country. I could think of much better referenda to put to the people. Here are a couple for starters

- Reform the way the Dail is elected in order to reduce / end parish pump politics
- Reform upwards only rent reviews to give our retail sector some breathing space from idotic / greedy landlords

At the moment, I'm edging towards a vote to abolish the Seaned. However, I'm under no illusions that the savings will make any difference whatsoever to the public finances.

Finton90 · 25-07-2013 11:26am

Can't see what use the seanad is tbh. Its undemocratic for starts, the idea that people from trinity and the nuis know more about politics than others is nonsense. I mean my parents can't vote and i would consider them to be very well informed whereas my sister can and she would just about the able to tell you the name of the taoiseach.

Another problem is that its used by failed dail candidates as a backdoor into politics. If candidates don't receive a mandate from their constituency they should go back to their day jobs instead of being sneaked in the back door of politics. some candidates have the idea that they are going to be public representative whether the public want them or not. One house is enough for a country of Ireland's size.

BuilderPlumber · 25-07-2013 2:09pm

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

At least the general public have the chance of getting rid of them from the Dail. It's much tougher to get rid of them from The Seanad on account of the fact that it is a completely undemocratic institution. There won't be any reform of The Seanad. If people vote to retain it, the same old status quo will continue.

This is true. The Dail and Seanad are both equally in need of reform but the people should be allowed vote in for the Seanad politicians as well. Not that voting makes much difference but at least we can get rid of maybe some of the worst ones.

The Seanad as it is is full of washed up politicians who have a place to go if they don't do well in general elections. How undemocratic: the people already reject some cowboy but that cowboy still gets a political appointment. Others can stay there and are quite happy to enter it for life like Adolf Norris. More younger up and coming ones can use it as a stomping ground to gain reputation for standing as a TD at a later stage.

BuilderPlumber · 25-07-2013 2:13pm

Finton90 wrote: »

Can't see what use the seanad is tbh. Its undemocratic for starts, the idea that people from trinity and the nuis know more about politics than others is nonsense. I mean my parents can't vote and i would consider them to be very well informed whereas my sister can and she would just about the able to tell you the name of the taoiseach.

Another problem is that its used by failed dail candidates as a backdoor into politics. If candidates don't receive a mandate from their constituency they should go back to their day jobs instead of being sneaked in the back door of politics. some candidates have the idea that they are going to be public representative whether the public want them or not. One house is enough for a country of Ireland's size.

NUI and Trinity people can only vote on the education panel. As regards the rest of the panels, I am unsure can anyone vote and think there is also the Taoiseach's 12 who can be appointed by the Taoiseach at will. My belief is that the Seanad either goes or else should be something that every person can vote for candidates in. As regards reform, the Seanad as well as the Dail both need radical reform! The current Seanad (and Dail) are obstacles to our development as a nation and are enemies of the people in the highest order.

Finton90 · 25-07-2013 2:49pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

NUI and Trinity people can only vote on the education panel. As regards the rest of the panels, I am unsure can anyone vote and think there is also the Taoiseach's 12 who can be appointed by the Taoiseach at will. My belief is that the Seanad either goes or else should be something that every person can vote for candidates in. As regards reform, the Seanad as well as the Dail both need radical reform! The current Seanad (and Dail) are obstacles to our development as a nation and are enemies of the people in the highest order.

Completely agree, a reformed democratic seanad would be fine but imo if it is retained after the referendum the whole issue will probably be put on the back burner again and it could be another decade before reform happens. Better of just voting to get ride of it, sick of listening to the likes of David Norris can never understand why he is so popular, he's the most pompous, bombastic person in the country and the type of person who probably thinks that there should be elites and a class system in societies with him at the top of course:P

Boulevardier · 25-07-2013 2:54pm

"NUI and Trinity people can only vote on the education panel." That is not correct. NUI and Trinity graduates do not vote on any panel. They have their own constituencies, 3 seats for Trinity, 3 for NUI.

Sierra Oscar · 26-07-2013 11:56am

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.

Finton90 · 26-07-2013 12:45pm

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 · 26-07-2013 1:10pm

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

ressem · 26-07-2013 1:50pm

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 · 26-07-2013 4:19pm

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 · 26-07-2013 5:30pm

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 · 26-07-2013 6:32pm

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 · 26-07-2013 7:38pm

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 · 26-07-2013 7:41pm

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 · 26-07-2013 7:57pm

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 · 26-07-2013 11:31pm

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 · 26-07-2013 11:34pm

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 · 27-07-2013 12:37am

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 · 27-07-2013 12:48am

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 · 27-07-2013 1:30am

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 · 27-07-2013 1:38am

This post has been deleted.

View · 27-07-2013 8:58am

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 · 27-07-2013 9:24am

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 · 27-07-2013 10:00am

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 · 27-07-2013 10:06am

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 · 27-07-2013 10:43am

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 · 27-07-2013 11:21am

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 · 27-07-2013 6:01pm

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 · 29-07-2013 7:20pm

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 · 29-07-2013 10:09pm

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.

Campaign to save the Seanad launched

Comments