Whats the point of abolishing the Seanad?

Mike 1972 · 03-10-2013 10:00PM

Is this thread about the senate or just a welfare-bashing-rabble-rabble thread ?

loseyourself · 03-10-2013 10:06PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Is this thread about the senate or just a welfare-bashing-rabble-rabble thread ?

Its more about the government been clueless.

BillyMitchel · 03-10-2013 10:08PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Is this thread about the senate or just a welfare-bashing-rabble-rabble thread ?

The usual AH crap. Escalated to the dole and single mothers rubbish. Rabble rabble rabble jews rabble rabble rabble tracksuit rabble rabble rabble budwesiser rabble rabble rabble high horses rabble rabble rabble dole rabble rabble rabble the country is focked because of the dole rabble rabble rabble Sinn Fein rabble rabble rabble skangers...

tayto lover · 03-10-2013 10:13PM

loseyourself wrote: »

It will only save pennies. Look at the welfare budget this needs to be badly reformed!

Do you honestly believe that you or I will benefit from any savings made by abolishing the Seanad? They will divert the savings into the Dail as they have said.
We gain nothing.

zenno · 03-10-2013 10:16PM

loseyourself wrote: »

I'm not quite sure really whether to abolish it or not but why the heck have a referendum for it. Means test the dole and reduce welfare. A 25 year old living with Mammy and Daddy does not need 188 week to survive.
How are people affording cars and holidays abroad on the dole.
Are our government really that thick. If a young one gets pregnant and doesn't use proper protection why does she get a free house and a ton of benefits. Its quite daft if you ask me. No wonder young ones are getting pregnant on purpose these days. Free house and tons of money. What could be better!

You get arrested for been drunk and disorderly, a young one gets a ton of money and a free house from having a one night stand.

Is this a dole thread or an on topic thread about the seanad ?

Bullseye1 · 03-10-2013 10:17PM

The hypocrisy of the current government stating that it cannot be reformed. I really don't know how Enda can hold a straight face. If he cannot reform a relatively simple institution as The Seanad how is he to reform the Dail as promised. He states its a waste of 20 million yet nominate his cronies to the place when they fail to get elected. We can have a referendum on this but not on the bank bailout or pensions for overpaid ministers and TDs.

But let's have on for Judges pay.

loseyourself · 03-10-2013 10:18PM

BillyMitchel wrote: »

The usual AH crap. Escalated to the dole and single mothers rubbish. Rabble rabble rabble jews rabble rabble rabble tracksuit rabble rabble rabble budwesiser rabble rabble rabble high horses rabble rabble rabble dole rabble rabble rabble the country is focked because of the dole rabble rabble rabble Sinn Fein rabble rabble rabble skangers...

zenno · 03-10-2013 10:19PM

Everyone should vote NO, because like all other referenda in Ireland... we will be asked to vote on it again, but next time we will get the option to force-reform it.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience · 03-10-2013 10:21PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

The Seanad is an expensive waste of space and oxygen. Bulldoze it.

We have a crazy amount of politicians for such a tiny little country

In the grand scheme of things it's not expensive at all

That said we don't need it and it has very little power so may as well get rid

Funnily enough the cost of running this referendum is more or less the same as it costs to run the seanad for a year

loseyourself · 03-10-2013 10:22PM

zenno wrote: »

Is this a dole thread or an on topic thread about the seanad ?

Point of thread is abolishing the Seanad will save nothing when welfare is at 20 billion.

iwantmydinner · 03-10-2013 10:27PM

loseyourself wrote: »

Its more about the government been clueless.

You're doing a *really* good job of making it look like a single mother bashing thread, though

tayto lover · 03-10-2013 10:32PM

zenno wrote: »

Everyone should vote NO, because like all other referenda in Ireland... we will be asked to vote on it again, but next time we will get the option to force-reform it.

The whole point of this Referendum is to indulge Enda in another little power trip.

loseyourself · 03-10-2013 10:33PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You're doing a *really* good job of making it look like a single mother bashing thread, though

Well its the truth. My family would be better off if I walked out and left financially.

Savoir.Faire · 03-10-2013 10:35PM

It will be a shame to see the abolishment of a chamber that has had amongst its contributors: William Butler Yeats, T. K. Whitaker, Edward Pakenham and Douglas Hyde.

earlyevening · 03-10-2013 10:38PM

Looks like we'll abolish the Seanad in the referendum and save a few quid, then blow it all (and more) setting up an Appeals court in the other referendum.

Fewer politicans and more judges!

Its a zero sum game.

zenno · 03-10-2013 10:39PM

tayto lover wrote: »

The whole point of this Referendum is to indulge Enda in another little power trip.

Well if Enda really wants it abolished, then i am sure if everyone votes NO, he will bring it back for voting a year later with the missing part called Reform.

tayto lover · 03-10-2013 10:39PM

Savoir.Faire wrote: »

It will be a shame to see the abolishment of a chamber that has had amongst its contributors: William Butler Yeats, T. K. Whitaker, Edward Pakenham and Douglas Hyde.

Correct.It should be reformed, numbers halved, reduced hours thus reduced wages, anything BUT should be retained.
This is not about saving money and people should ask themselves why Enda wants it closed.

iwantmydinner · 03-10-2013 10:43PM

loseyourself wrote: »

Well its the truth. My family would be better off if I walked out and left financially.

But what's that got to do with the Referendum?

loseyourself · 03-10-2013 10:55PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

But what's that got to do with the Referendum?

If you read my first opening post you would see the point I am trying to make is that the its pointless abolishing the Seanad as it will only save pennies when welfare is at 20 billion and this needs to be addressed. I must not have making myself clear. Overpaying on welfare is destroying the country. If proper proceedings were introduced the 20 billion could be cut down quite a lot.

Savoir.Faire · 03-10-2013 11:02PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Correct.It should be reformed, numbers halved, reduced hours thus reduced wages, anything BUT should be retained.
This is not about saving money and people should ask themselves why Enda wants it closed.

It clearly hasn't been fit for purpose. It would be ideal to have a second house that deals with some of the more cerebral issues and agendas that are relevant to the State. A place where the broader cultural and artistic merits of this country are debated using the principles of ethos, logos and, to a much lesser extent, pathos.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 03-10-2013 11:05PM

On RTÉ Radio One’s News at One, Seán O’Rourke played a tape of Kenny’s contribution to
MacGill. He said: “I see a new role for the Seanad entirely. The system of voting has got to be
changed. Every graduate should be entitled to vote for the Seanad. I see real opportunities for
connection with Europe. It should be the forum where MEPs can address the Seanad. It should
be able to examine European legislation in a real . . . way. It should be a forum where
delegations can come and make their case on national issues, and the whole lot of it should be
on a parliamentary [TV] channel.”

ENDA IS A FOOL.

Savoir.Faire · 03-10-2013 11:10PM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

On RTÉ Radio One’s News at One, Seán O’Rourke played a tape of Kenny’s contribution to
MacGill. He said: “I see a new role for the Seanad entirely. The system of voting has got to be
changed. Every graduate should be entitled to vote for the Seanad. I see real opportunities for
connection with Europe. It should be the forum where MEPs can address the Seanad. It should
be able to examine European legislation in a real . . . way. It should be a forum where
delegations can come and make their case on national issues, and the whole lot of it should be
on a parliamentary [TV] channel.”

ENDA IS A FOOL.

While there are many salient arguments to be made for the retention of the Senate, using an example of what Kenny said a number of years ago isn't hugely relevant. People are entitled to change their minds on issues.

I used to rather enjoy some of the earlier works by the Kings of Leon. I now get a mild migraine if I am forced to listen to their newer tracks.

Bullseye1 · 03-10-2013 11:15PM

In fairness it's quite the 180. But then again Enda is the king of the 180.

_Redzer_ · 03-10-2013 11:19PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

In fairness it's quite the 180. But then again Enda is the king of the 180.

Thought that was Microsoft with the new xbox tbh :P

Uriel. · 03-10-2013 11:23PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Correct.It should be reformed, numbers halved, reduced hours thus reduced wages, anything BUT should be retained.
This is not about saving money and people should ask themselves why Enda wants it closed.

WE should always ask our legislators, particularly where amendments to the Constitution are concerned - "What is the purpose of this, and what does it achieve?"

But, just because we don't like a politician, doesn't mean the proposal is without merit. To be honest, if we ask ourselves the question you pose so cynically, we might not have had any constitutional amendments to date.

The question really for any citizen should be "does the Seanad serve a purpose, that is worthwhile?" - if you can't get a really good reason for this, then I would hazard that you should lean towards abolition.

I also don't think that constitutional amendments should be decided upon financial grounds, certainly not in isolation anyway.

Considering the powers of the Seanad, I personally, find it difficult to find a long-term need. Even with reform, I am not so sure of the need to be perfectly honest. But my evaluation of this proposed Constitutional amendment will be made on the basis of the proposal and it's long-term effects, and won't be based on the party holding the reins of power, as it is the most ridiculous reason for voting one way or another.

Also, I can't fathom anyone suggesting "what's the point?" savings made will be eaten up by the cost of the new appeal court, if that amendment is met with a positive response. Save for the fact that we vote on them at the same time, there should be no connection made between them.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 03-10-2013 11:25PM

Savoir.Faire wrote: »

While there are many salient arguments to be made for the retention of the Senate, using an example of what Kenny said a number of years ago isn't hugely relevant. People are entitled to change their minds on issues.

I used to rather enjoy some of the earlier works by the Kings of Leon. I now get a mild migraine if I am forced to listen to their newer tracks.

Fair enough, some of their earlier stuff was fairly decent, they had some top tunes which simply haven't been there since they became a bit too 'mainstream'.

I wrote out what I thought of the Seanad earlier today so I posted the Enda being a fool post on this thread as to not repeat myself.

***

I'm voting to keep the Seanad, reforms or no reforms. I've only read the last couple of pages of this thread but here;

It centralises the power the cabinet has over the country furthermore.
It gives opposing views a louder voice. If I'm pissed off about water meters I can bitch about it to my friends or write about it online. If David Norris is against water meters he can get his voice heard on the 6.1 News or on Primetime or on the Oireachtas report.
It won't save 20 million, whatever this actual lower figure really is, is a small price to pay to have a second chamber to our legislative.
The Seanad makes it harder for the government to guillotine legislation.
The Seanad helps make up the numbers for the Dail committees.
The Seanad helps scrutinise legislation.
As hypothetical as it sounds, if the government tried to pass an absolutely crazy draconian piece of legislation than at least the Seanad provides a small buffer to this, it's small, but it's there. Even having an opposing voice coming from there in a time of crisis or extreme legislation can mean something, usually very little but someday it could be huge. Michael D's position is largely ceremonial but he still has a voice and plays quite an active role and is a very real part of our democracy.
I don't trust politicians but the more of them that are there to keep an eye on each other the better it is in my view.

A reformed Seanad could become an invaluable part of our democracy.
It could enable non career politicians into our legislator. Business, sport, accountancy, (Michael O'Leary ) folk north of the border, green and orange, Irish Americans maybe, minority politicians and so on, there is so much you could do with it that would improve our democracy.
Maybe make people almost volunteer their services for the public good. None of these Taoiseach appointed scumbags like Ivor Callely who are failed politicians collecting a massive salary, yuck!
We could make it directly electable using the large European constituencies so we can have national or at least semi national politicians in there who have the country, or at least a third of the countries best interest at heart, less of the parish pump basically.
Give it more powers ect ect. ect.

There's a very real chance that the populist opposition (FF, SF or any new party) could run on a platform of complete reform of the Seanad if it is kept, it is a very real possibility.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Seanad but I would prefer to have it there than not.

***

kowloon · 03-10-2013 11:27PM

It seems to me that the Seanad makes a great sacrificial lamb. It makes it look like politicians are hitting their own, saving money and reforming government.
We need to reduce numbers of politicians, the Dail is the best place to start. Reducing the size of the Dail would also save more money than abolishing the Seanad.
A real government reform would be a reform of both houses, abolishing one is a terrible idea.
Anything that concentrates more power in the Dail is something I'd be wary of.

Bullseye1 · 03-10-2013 11:33PM

/\ this.

razorgil · 03-10-2013 11:33PM

i wonder if shatter had much of an impact on this whole appeal court scenario. he wants to look after his own gang, (ie the legal profession), so one can be sure that if this new court goes through, his own firm will benefit, directly or otherwise.

tayto lover · 03-10-2013 11:34PM

Uriel. wrote: »

WE should always ask our legislators, particularly where amendments to the Constitution are concerned - "What is the purpose of this, and what does it achieve?"

But, just because we don't like a politician, doesn't mean the proposal is without merit. To be honest, if we ask ourselves the question you pose so cynically, we might not have had any constitutional amendments to date.

The question really for any citizen should be "does the Seanad serve a purpose, that is worthwhile?" - if you can't get a really good reason for this, then I would hazard that you should lean towards abolition.

I also don't think that constitutional amendments should be decided upon financial grounds, certainly not in isolation anyway.

Considering the powers of the Seanad, I personally, find it difficult to find a long-term need. Even with reform, I am not so sure of the need to be perfectly honest. But my evaluation of this proposed Constitutional amendment will be made on the basis of the proposal and it's long-term effects, and won't be based on the party holding the reins of power, as it is the most ridiculous reason for voting one way or another.

Also, I can't fathom anyone suggesting "what's the point?" savings made will be eaten up by the cost of the new appeal court, if that amendment is met with a positive response. Save for the fact that we vote on them at the same time, there should be no connection made between them.

Yes I suppose I am a bit cynical and do not trust Enda at all.
It probably has something to do with all the lies and U-turns he has done.

Whats the point of abolishing the Seanad?

Comments