nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Seanad abolition - does any one other than McDowell and the Senators really care?

beeftotheheels

I'm curious whether any one really feels strongly about the Seanad abolition other than vested interests?

I mean I think we all know that in its current guise it is pretty useless, woefully undemocratic, and a couple of half decent independent politicians who could probably get elected if they ran for the Dáil aside, filled with even more political dross than Dáil Éireann.

If we were being offered the opportunity to vote to reform it and make it accountable and fit for purpose, to give it real oversight powers I can see why that might be exciting.

But we're not.

So does anyone who is not a vested interest, or trying to revive a flagged political career, really care whether we abolish it or not?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Javan

Mouth of the South wrote: »

"Contempt" is what the Fianna Downfall regime of 1997 -2011 showed to the Irish people. "Contempt" is a sleveen like Meehole Martin reversing his position on the Seanad for cheap politicking pointscoring . "Contempt" is what the Shinners have for the right of people on both sides of the border to even be alive and for the existence of this very State.

I'm not arguing with any of that.

Contempt is also what Enda is showing by refusing to get involved in a debate. Contempt is what you are showing by using childish names instead of talking about this important issue like an adult.

Mouth of the South

Javan wrote: »

You were just told what local government has to do with it.

Any country that has a working parliament with only one house also has strong local government. This is all about concentration of power in one house, and one office in that house.
Concentrated power always inevitably leads to increased corruption and a worse outcome for people outside the inner circle.

This government is looking to abolish the Seanad, rigidly apply the whip and weaken local government. Add that up and it is a clear power grab. Putting all that power in one office cannot be good for the country.

A bunch of parish pump gombeens and sleveens in Ballaghdreen or Fingal have nothing to do with the national legislature or national affairs. And your "adding up" is the classic 2 + 2 = 5.

Javan

Mouth of the South wrote: »

A bunch of parish pump gombeens and sleveens in Ballaghdreen or Fingal have nothing to do with the national legislature or national affairs. And your "adding up" is the classic 2 + 2 = 5.

You keep making my point for me. The local government here has no role is legislative affairs.
In other democracies with a single house the local government has power to pass local laws for local issues.

Thank you for making my point so clearly.

Mouth of the South

Javan wrote: »

I'm not arguing with any of that.

Contempt is also what Enda is showing by refusing to get involved in a debate. Contempt is what you are showing by using childish names instead of talking about this important issue like an adult.

Are you offended on behalf of Fianna Fáil, Micheál Martin or Sinn Féin, oh "adult" one?

Mouth of the South

Javan wrote: »

You keep making my point for me. The local government here has no role is legislative affairs.
In other democracies with a single house the local government has power to pass local laws for local issues.

Thank you for making my point so clearly.

Oh really? With a country of less than 5 million people and an already hugely over-inflated lower house, why in God's name do we need more inefficient local government and an undemocratic upper house talking chamber?

Javan

Mouth of the South wrote: »

Are you offended on behalf of Fianna Fáil, Micheál Martin or Sinn Féin, oh "adult" one?

I'm not offended by any of it. I agree with what you said about Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Micheal Martin. So what?

Actually; the fact that they are all as bad as each other is all the more reason to avoid putting all the authority in one office.

Again; you make my point for me.

Mouth of the South

Javan wrote: »

I'm not offended by any of it. I agree with what you said about Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Micheal Martin. So what?

Actually; the fact that they are all as bad as each other is all the more reason to avoid putting all the authority in one office.

Again; you make my point for me.

You got prim and prissy on their behalf, why backtrack now? And you keep on glibly saying over and over "you made my point for me" as if by the mere fact of repeating that that it somehow 'proves' your gibberish about supposed 'loss of democracy'. Change the record.

Javan

Mouth of the South wrote: »

You got prim and prissy on their behalf, why backtrack now? And you keep on glibly saying over and over "you made my point for me" as if by the mere fact of repeating that that it somehow 'proves' your gibberish about supposed 'loss of democracy'. Change the record.

Give me a reason to.

Make an argument that our lives will be better without the Seanad.

Banjoxed

Mouth of the South wrote: »

Oh really? With a country of less than 5 million people and an already hugely over-inflated lower house, why in God's name do we need more inefficient local government and an undemocratic upper house talking chamber?

God knows we need more counterbalances to unfettered power in this country. Nobody asked any citizen in this country about "reforms" to local government, yet they are happening. And when every other item on the RTE news is a dressed up press release from one lobbyist or another giving the buggers an input to legislation without being accountable to the citizens of this country is just wrong and shows Official Ireland's contempt for the public.

delthedriver

Gone beyond caring tbh. I won't be voting as I will be out of the country:)

seligehgit

Several small countries I believe have a political system based on a unicameral system without any threat to their democracies.We have checks and balances in our political system,referral of any bills that might deemed unconstitutional to the supreme court by the president.Everybody knows how ineffective the Seanad has been as a check on the executive,reform will never happen in my opinion if the referendum is defeated and we'll be left grossly over represented in terms of politicians at a national level in comparison to most developed democracies.

Javan

seligehgit wrote: »

Several small countries I believe have a political system based on a unicameral system without any threat to their democracies.We have checks and balances in our political system,referral of any bills that might deemed unconstitutional to the supreme court by the president.Everybody knows how ineffective the Seanad has been as a check on the executive,reform will never happen in my opinion if the referendum is defeated and we'll be left grossly over represented in terms of politicians at a national level in comparison to most developed democracies.

Agreed, but as has been pointed out in this and other threads on the subject; other countries that have a parliament with one house have also got effective and powerful local government. We do not.

Ever since the abolition of the original property tax by Fianna Fail our local government has become less relevant and less accountable. The current administration is continuing that trend.

No-one is saying that the Seanad is perfect, but surely an imperfect counterbalance to the authority of the government party whip is better than none at all?

dlouth15

Javan wrote: »

Agreed, but as has been pointed out in this and other threads on the subject; other countries that have a parliament with one house have also got effective and powerful local government. We do not.

A Seanad full of failed politicians is no substitute for effective local government but voting no in the referendum sends the message to politicians that the electorate don't like change. And so, slim though it might be at the moment, there is even less chance of reform in other areas of government, local or otherwise. It also ensures seanad reform isn't going to happen either.

Let me ask you this. Imagine you one of the types who doesn't like change of any sort. There are a lot of these people about. They are quiet and don't tend to take part in debates but politicians care about their votes. If you were one of these people, how would you vote in the referendum?

Javan

dlouth15 wrote: »

Let me ask you this. Imagine you one of the types who doesn't like change of any sort. There are a lot of these people about. They are quiet and don't tend to take part in debates but politicians care about their votes. If you were one of these people, how would you vote in the referendum?

I can't answer that question. I'm not quiet and I have no imagination.

I'm not sure what answer you were looking for either.
- A person who does not like change might vote no.
- A person who is quiet might not vote.
- A person who does not get involved in debate might vote with the biggest ads or the most posters. In this case that will be a yes.

Personally I vote on the basis of self-interest. What result will be best for me.
A no vote will be neither good nor bad. A yes vote will be bad. Therefore the decision is easy: vote no.

opiniated

dlouth15 wrote: »

A Seanad full of failed politicians is no substitute for effective local government but voting no in the referendum sends the message to politicians that the electorate don't like change. And so, slim though it might be at the moment, there is even less chance of reform in other areas of government, local or otherwise. It also ensures seanad reform isn't going to happen either.

Let me ask you this. Imagine you one of the types who doesn't like change of any sort. There are a lot of these people about. They are quiet and don't tend to take part in debates but politicians care about their votes. If you were one of these people, how would you vote in the referendum?

Hmm. I'm not quiet, I long for change - but I'm voting No!

I'm voting No because I don't want the whip system to have the potential to be used even more effectively.
I'm voting No because I refuse to change the Constitution based on vague promises of change by a Taoiseach who refuses to even debate the issue.
I'm voting No because the public have been lied to too many times by elected representatives.
I'm voting No because the current Government, despite public refusal to give the Oireachtas further powers of inquiry in a referendum, insist on holding an inquiry on arguably the most expensive debacle/fraud? in the history of the state.

In other words - show me your wonderful plans for improving Democracy in the Dail, Enda - and I'll consider whether or not you are trustworthy.
You could start by abolishing the whip.....it might make people think you're a little less arbitrary than you proved yourself to be during the abortion "debate"!

dlouth15

Javan wrote: »

I can't answer that question. I'm not quiet and I have no imagination.
I'm not sure what answer you were looking for either.
- A person who does not like change might vote no.
- A person who is quiet might not vote.
- A person who does not get involved in debate might vote with the biggest ads or the most posters. In this case that will be a yes.

Personally I vote on the basis of self-interest. What result will be best for me.
A no vote will be neither good nor bad. A yes vote will be bad. Therefore the decision is easy: vote no.

Apologies. My question was really aimed at others on this thread and was mistakenly directed at you. If you really believe that the Seanad as it is currently has more positives than negatives then it makes sense to want to keep it. I'm voting yes because I believe otherwise, and also for the message it sends out though this is a lesser reason.

ger664

Are people really happy with the removal of Article 27 from the constitution ?

echo beach

ger664 wrote: »

Are people really happy with the removal of Article 27 from the constitution ?

Given that most people don't know what Article 27 is, and that they don't know that this referendum will remove it, then it is hard for them to have an opinion on it.
The referendum commission booklet doesn't tell you what articles are being removed or changed, or make it clear how many major changes to the constitution are involved. Only by going onto the website and looking at the 'constitution before and after' section, which runs to thirty pages, do you get an understanding that this isn't about one question, 'do you want a second chamber?' it is about making numerous and significant changes to our constitution and how we govern our country.
It also doesn't give you the exact wording we will be asked to vote on. It takes a good bit of searching to find the sample ballot papers, which ask if you approve of a Bill. We are also going to get a 'statement of information' with our polling cards, which consists of a single sentence.

seamus

http://referendum2013.ie/referendum-commission-writes-to-houses-of-the-oireachtas-commission-on-seanad-costs/

Apparently the €20m costs figure cited for the Seanad "may not fully translate into savings" if it's abolished.

Looking at the figures, the €2m pensions costs will remain. The €9.3m in support costs will probably remain for the most part as the staff and equipment are re-used elsewhere.

How much does it cost to hold a referendum, and if the Seanad is abolished how much will it cost to "reform" the Dail?

This is looking more and more like a distraction show from the Government, they're failing to show any practical benefits for abolishing the Seanad beyond populist statements like, "Less politicians".

BailMeOut

The Seanad is basically a peer review on bill being proposed by the Dail before they are passed. That's effectively what they do. If we abolish the Seanad I believe the Dail will have to work harder as they do not have another chamber to effectively check their work. I suspect they have been useful and effective helping the Dail to draft bills over the last 70+ years and from what I can work out that's all they do.

I am voting 'yes' as abolishing it is at least some reform, voting 'no' will mean that nothing changes. The worst case scenario is the supreme court starts to get backlogged as we find out the Dail cannot do their job properly or pass bills or laws that are constitutional. I am ok with this as and it might be the trigger to force us to make real changes to how our country is governed and who we elect.

Sierra Oscar

BailMeOut wrote: »

I am voting 'yes' as abolishing it is at least some reform, voting 'no' will mean that nothing changes.

That is questionable to be honest. If the referendum is voted down then it is because people want reform, there is not one group in society campaigning for the status quo to be maintained. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the government will put up its hands and exclaim that abolishing the Seanad was their vision of political reform. Why haven't they detailed their Oireachtas reform proposals prior to the referendum vote? I suspect that it is because they don't have a plan. The committee system reforms that they detailed last week were hastily put together by some advisors when they realised that people were not being conned so easily. The Ceann Comhairle of Dáil was not consulted. The Fine Gael parliamentary party was not consulted. The Oireachtas itself was not consulted. In fact no one was consulted. In anycase this talk of a new committee system is just a fudge, so long as the government remains in absolute control of the committee system then little will change no matter what new committees they create.

If the referendum is defeated then the government will have to pursue reform. The only reason Enda Kenny has not confirmed that yet is because his campaign would collapse if he did so.

I think Stephen Donnelly sums it up quite well.

Stephen Donnelly TD makes the Vote No case

dlouth15

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

That is questionable to be honest. If the referendum is voted down then it is because people want reform, there is not one group in society campaigning for the status quo to be maintained.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Campaigns are there to swing the floating voters and those who might vote yes but aren't sure. They don't necessarily represent the bulk of the no voters who could very well simply be averse to change of any sort. The no campaign won't be representative of these people for the simple reason that they don't need persuasion. A better strategy is to target those who want reform. Make them think that by voting no, they are likely to get that reform.

BailMeOut

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

If the referendum is voted down then it is because people want reform

For some people this may be the case but then again a lot of people will be voting no as they want the Seanad to remain. I get the sense that people do not know what the Seanad does and they seriously think it is a proper check on what the Dail does. Also from reading this thread there are some comments from people voting no just as a protest vote against the current government.

Getting rid of the Seanad is the first serious change to how our government is setup since 1937. Its a start and it will be up to use electorate to make sure more is in the works. My personal opinion is that we need a very small Dail (no idea how we do this and keep PR!), no Seanad and more localized power and decision making.

Sierra Oscar

dlouth15 wrote: »

A better strategy is to target those who want reform. Make them think that by voting no, they are likely to get that reform.

Aye, I think that is what most of the no campaigners are trying to do.

What do people reckon the turnout will be? If it is a low turnout, who will it favour?

echo beach

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

What do people reckon the turnout will be? If it is a low turnout, who will it favour?

Turnout is bound to be low. Most people really couldn't care less about the Seanad. They may not like it but they don't hate it either. The only reason they might make the effort to abolish it is if they are convinced of major savings but even if the 20 million figure sticks, and it now looks very shaky, you need to talk in hundreds of millions now to get people's attention. The figure in everybody's head is €3.1 billion and €20 million doesn't sound much compared to that.

A low turnout usually favours the side who is most committed. The 'yes' side has all the main political parties bar FF but you could count on your fingers the numbers who are canvassing. County Councillors usually do the groundwork but they are ones who have Seanad votes and who may aspire to making their next move there so they aren't going to waste their time going to the doorsteps to take abuse over this. In the secrecy of the ballot box I suspect many of them, and quite a few TDs, won't toe the party line.
The 'no' camp is small but everybody in it has choosen to be there for whatever reason and they seem much more comfortable and confident in setting out their stall.

opiniated

BailMeOut wrote: »

For some people this may be the case but then again a lot of people will be voting no as they want the Seanad to remain. I get the sense that people do not know what the Seanad does and they seriously think it is a proper check on what the Dail does. Also from reading this thread there are some comments from people voting no just as a protest vote against the current government.

Getting rid of the Seanad is the first serious change to how our government is setup since 1937. Its a start and it will be up to use electorate to make sure more is in the works. My personal opinion is that we need a very small Dail (no idea how we do this and keep PR!), no Seanad and more localized power and decision making.

I'm not voting no as a protest vote against the Government.
I'm voting "No" because I don't trust the Government, hence I have no intention whatsoever of giving them a blank cheque, based on vague promises that I don't believe will be kept.

How do you propose that the electorate ensure change takes place?

The truth is that we get one chance, every five years, to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the Government.
We get to try to second guess what is truth or lies in pre-election "promises" - and that is the only control citizens have.
After a Government is formed, even TDs have no say in Cabinet decisions. The whip is applied stringently to any dissenters, and the rest line up like good little yes-men or women.

That is what needs to change, and abolishing the Seanad will not achieve that.
Quite the opposite, in fact!

Sierra Oscar

Apologies for the cross posting, but I feel this is relevant to this thread too:

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

This is an interesting article penned by Professor David Farrell, who was the Head of School at the School of Politics and International Relations in UCD. He also spearheaded the "We the Citizens" assembly, which lead to the creation of the constitutional convention that is currently running in Ireland.

Why I will be voting ‘No’ in the Seanad referendum

The message is - if you want meaningful reform, then vote no.

It is interesting that a lot of the heavy hitter academics in Ireland are turning against the governments campaign. Professor Farrell shaped a lot of the governments early reform plans, which was evident when they took on his idea for a 'people's assembly' that we now know as the constitutional convention - although it is much more limited than was envisaged by Professor Farrell.

Either way it shows that there is a disconnect growing between the political academics in Ireland and the government itself when it comes to the topic of political reform. I think it illustrates perfectly that this government feels that abolishing the Seanad ticks the box "political reform" box for now. I bet that they will come out and pull a stunt by saying that they will pursue further political reform measures after the next election should the referendum be passed, and try and claim that their mandate for political reform for this term has been fulfilled.

Javan

BailMeOut wrote: »

The Seanad is basically a peer review on bill being proposed by the Dail before they are passed. That's effectively what they do. If we abolish the Seanad I believe the Dail will have to work harder as they do not have another chamber to effectively check their work. I suspect they have been useful and effective helping the Dail to draft bills over the last 70+ years and from what I can work out that's all they do.

I am voting 'yes' as abolishing it is at least some reform, voting 'no' will mean that nothing changes. The worst case scenario is the supreme court starts to get backlogged as we find out the Dail cannot do their job properly or pass bills or laws that are constitutional. I am ok with this as and it might be the trigger to force us to make real changes to how our country is governed and who we elect.

Why believe that the Dail will suddenly get better at writing legislation with the Seanad disbanded?
Are they not doing their best now? Why not?
Or perhaps you think that since no-one is going to question their work they'll do a better job? To me the opposite seems more likely; no-one is going to tell them where they make mistakes so those mistakes will never be corrected.

No change is not a great result. Voting yes will make some changes. (I'd call it deform rather than reform, but whatever). But the one thing worse than no change is a change for the worse.

manonboard

I care quite strongly about it. I really do believe in the reasons why it *suppose* to be there.

I really want reform, I'm very angry that this option is being made available.

I consider the abolition of it a easy way to make the problem go away without really providing a real solution.

So i'll be voting no in the desperate hope that keeping the senad in existance may one day lead to a process to reform it.
It's desperate and unlikely, but unlikely is better than never, which is what i consider abolition.

There was previous precident set where a house would be abolished and decades later recreated but I consider this a wider gamble.

expectationlost

confused by assertion that gov didn't consult about dail reform, outline published in june,committee on dail reform (the whips) met in july

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0922/475771-politics/