Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

mahoganygas wrote: »

Topics like same sex marriage were first discussed in the Seanad. Long before it was ever debated in the Dail.

And SSM was debated in the pub before it was debated in the Seanad. So what?

robindch wrote: »

It was intended to be a balancing legislative chamber to the Dail; however its legislative and review powers were hobbled by De Valera in his successful 1936 constitutional power grab, so it's a little bit useless at the moment.

Some more degree of seriousness on the part of voters would be good, as would a greater democratic mandate, and greater power.

True, but mainly it aped the House of Lords in the same way that the Dail was based on the House of Commons. The House of Lords only exists for historical reasons and is largely obsolete, like the monarchy. There is no good reason for a republic to ape either of these. Even our president is devoid of executive power and acts mainly as a figurehead, thus aping the British monarch.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

And SSM was debated in the pub before it was debated in the Seanad. So what?
True, but mainly it aped the House of Lords in the same way that the Dail was based on the House of Commons. The House of Lords only exists for historical reasons and is largely obsolete, like the monarchy. There is no good reason for a republic to ape either of these. Even our president is devoid of executive power and acts mainly as a figurehead, thus aping the British monarch.

Not a massive fan of the House of Lords myself, particularly the bunch of bishops that sit in it, it it has done some really good work recently, and it has done it at the risk of losing what little power it has left.

MrP

Christy42

marienbad wrote: »

I also voted for it to be abolished , and if that had happened then most would revert to just being cranks , now because people think it is beneath them to vote we end up with cranks with megaphones and legitimacy .

And the rest of us with no vote have to just look on .

Why look on? They aren't going to make a blind bit of difference either way. It really is like a student election. All full of promises about what they will do without the position any power. Sure the TDs lie to get into power but at least it is theoretically possible for them to do something useful.

They are cranks with a salary for being cranks. Sure they debated about ssm but no one payed attention. Then Labour made it an issue to get into government with fine gael last time out and then we had the vote.

Feel free to contact me if they look like doing something. Until then I will pay attention to the politicians who may change something.

Yes the Seanad's powers are very limited, but there are enough (too many) social conservatives in there already without the NUI panel adding to their number.

If Maynooth wasn't an NUI college Mullen would have a much harder time getting in...

Christy42 wrote: »

Why look on? They aren't going to make a blind bit of difference either way. It really is like a student election. All full of promises about what they will do without the position any power. Sure the TDs lie to get into power but at least it is theoretically possible for them to do something useful.

They are cranks with a salary for being cranks. Sure they debated about ssm but no one payed attention. Then Labour made it an issue to get into government with fine gael last time out and then we had the vote.

Feel free to contact me if they look like doing something. Until then I will pay attention to the politicians who may change something.

Ronan Mullan wouldn't have half the media influence he has without his Senate seat .

PopePalpatine

marienbad wrote: »

Ronan Mullan wouldn't have half the media influence he has without his Senate seat .

Chances are he'd get a column in the Irish Catholic, Catholic Voice or some other ultramontane rag.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Chances are he'd get a column in the Irish Catholic, Catholic Voice or some other ultramontane rag.

Indeed ,but there he would be preaching to the converted , but not on Rte radio and television morning noon and night .

On the other he is a great ad for agnosticism

mansize

marienbad wrote: »

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Chances are he'd get a column in the Irish Catholic, Catholic Voice or some other ultramontane rag.

Indeed ,but there he would be preaching to the converted , but not on Rte radio and television morning noon and night .

On the other he is a great ad for agnosticism

Add your reply here.

Like David Quinn... He's not elected

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

I also voted for it to be abolished , and if that had happened then most would revert to just being cranks , now because people think it is beneath them to vote we end up with cranks with megaphones and legitimacy .

And the rest of us with no vote have to just look on .

I voted against abolition for the simple reason that it is the only, albeit often toothless, check on the Dáil - particularity in light of the 'government' consisting of The Gang of Four and so much legislation being whipped through the guillotine I felt any check , albeit often toothless, was better than none at all which was what was on offer.

I want to see a Seanad with genuine powers to call the Dáil to task not an already unaccountable Dáil with even greater powers in fewer hands.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I want to see a Seanad with genuine powers to call the Dáil to task not an already unaccountable Dáil with even greater powers in fewer hands.

All very laudable, but you are barking up the wrong tree. There is no point in any country having two parliaments.

"Checks and balances" to govt. power are necessary, but the established way of doing this in a republic is to give the President executive power to implement the laws, while the legislature writes the laws. As in France, or the USA where Congress balances the White House.

As we have chosen against this model, we only have effective checks on the govt. at those rare times when the govt. has insufficient numbers to fully control and sideline the Dail.
As it happens, that time is now.

12Phase

The bigger issue is actually the highly dysfunctional lower house and it's lack of ability to hold the executive to any kind of account.

That needs simple, but serious reform. The current standing orders haven't been very good for democracy.

While we continue to have a Dail elected on the basis of parochial, local and often very minor issues, there is an argument for a second chamber elected on the basis of regional or national constituencies and allowing for the election of those not prepared to play the pointless gombeen knocking on doors and going to funerals game.

The current Seanad is not that, but the university panels are the closest thing to that. David Norris for instance has made a great contribution to national politics but would have little or no chance of ever being elected to the Dail.

12Phase

Doesn't have to be a second chamber you can have multiple constituency types in one chamber.

Or a list system of PR

12Phase wrote: »

Doesn't have to be a second chamber you can have multiple constituency types in one chamber.

So we get a minority of 'non-constituency' TDs in the Dail, with no influence.

marienbad wrote: »

Or a list system of PR

A list system is great in theory; in practice the worst sort of party hacks will be on the list without an original thought in their head.

A second chamber has at least the possibility of not acting in the government's pre-determined interest and giving them something to think about, or useful amendments etc.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A list system is great in theory; in practice the worst sort of party hacks will be on the list without an original thought in their head.

You mean even worse than party hacks we are already saddled with ?

At list the list system frees us somewhat from the fixing the potholes brigade

marienbad wrote: »

You mean even worse than party hacks we are already saddled with ?

At list the list system frees us somewhat from the fixing the potholes brigade

But the party hacks we have now were individually elected - even a popular party can see locally unpopular candidates rejected. A list system means that candidates presented by the party get elected in proportion to their national vote - voters have no veto over list candidates however odious they are.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

David Norris for instance has made a great contribution to national politics but would have little or no chance of ever being elected to the Dail.

Its funny how every defence of the Seanad always ends up citing David Norris. If he dies, there will be no justification at all left for it.

BTW I'd say he would have a very good chance of election to the Dail. Maybe not at the start of his career, but nowadays he would. But hey, that's democracy for you.

If you voted in the referendum to retain the Seanad, and then voted in their elections, ask yourself this question; is there a little part of you that likes the idea that you are voting in an election that the other half of the country are not allowed to vote in?

This idea that the university panels and their electorate know better than everybody else is annoying to, well... everybody else.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But the party hacks we have now were individually elected - even a popular party can see locally unpopular candidates rejected. A list system means that candidates presented by the party get elected in proportion to their national vote - voters have no veto over list candidates however odious they are.

Yeah ,I know how it works .

At least with a list system you have some corrective to candidates within the same constituency vying to outbid each on local isssues , even when they are in the same party.

recedite wrote: »

Its funny how every defence of the Seanad always ends up citing David Norris. If he dies, there will be no justification at all left for it.

BTW I'd say he would have a very good chance of election to the Dail. Maybe not at the start of his career, but nowadays he would. But hey, that's democracy for you.

He'd only have a chance of Dail election because of his long and distinguished Seanad career, you prove my point.

If you voted in the referendum to retain the Seanad, and then voted in their elections, ask yourself this question; is there a little part of you that likes the idea that you are voting in an election that the other half of the country are not allowed to vote in?

This idea that the university panels and their electorate know better than everybody else is annoying to, well... everybody else.

Yes voted to retain it and voted in the TCD panel - but exclusivity is not appealing to me, the national constituency and lack of localism is, as a counterweight (albeit limited) to the Dail.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He'd only have a chance of Dail election because of his long and distinguished Seanad career, you prove my point.

He strikes me as the kind of guy who would have been "in the public eye" one way or another. If the people thought highly of him, they would vote him in.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

All very laudable, but you are barking up the wrong tree. There is no point in any country having two parliaments.

"Checks and balances" to govt. power are necessary, but the established way of doing this in a republic is to give the President executive power to implement the laws, while the legislature writes the laws. As in France, or the USA where Congress balances the White House.

As we have chosen against this model, we only have effective checks on the govt. at those rare times when the govt. has insufficient numbers to fully control and sideline the Dail.
As it happens, that time is now.

In the abolition referendum we were not offered the options of different trees to bark up. It was a stark choice between the sliver birch of stay or the ash of go.
Vague promises of a rowan of reform at some point or other in the as yet undefined future were mentioned but as so many many governmental promises of reform turned to sawdust I, personally, wasn't prepared to risk a treehouse legislature on them.

RainyDay

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The current Seanad is not that, but the university panels are the closest thing to that. David Norris for instance has made a great contribution to national politics but would have little or no chance of ever being elected to the Dail.

The nation has made a great contribution to David Norris, by paying him a disability pension for 16 years while he was working in the Seanad (and paid there too).

http://www.thejournal.ie/norris-received-disability-allowance-because-of-hepatitis-diagnosis-245877-Oct2011/

Absolam

RainyDay wrote: »

The nation has made a great contribution to David Norris, by paying him a disability pension for 16 years while he was working in the Seanad (and paid there too). http://www.thejournal.ie/norris-received-disability-allowance-because-of-hepatitis-diagnosis-245877-Oct2011/

I thought it was TCD paying him the disability pension? From an income protection insurance fund?

RainyDay

Absolam wrote: »

I thought it was TCD paying him the disability pension? From an income protection insurance fund?

Where does TCD get funding to pay their insurance premiums from?

sassyj

RainyDay wrote: »

Where does TCD get funding to pay their insurance premiums from?

Not sure about Trinity's pension arrangements, but with my pension, fees are taken from my contributions and pay income protection insurance