Senate Debate on Late Late Show - March 20th 2009

Rebelheart

Pat Kenny is given an awful amount of stick, much of it justified, but last night he was on top form. He was clearly very well aware of the issues. And he held his ground, and persisted with the tough questions.

It was genuinely refreshing from the man who made his career all those years ago asking the tough political questions on Today Tonight. We need more of it.

Fine Gael's absence was cowardly. One thing unites all the parties: Seanad Éireann is the fallback position for all politicians, because some day when they too are rejected by the electorate they will need that €115,000+ that Seanad Éireann offers. Otherwise they'd have to get a real job like the rest of us. Hence they talk of "reform", because talk of "redundancy" is only for us little people.

brianthebard

ateam wrote: »

Defending the indefensible.

I'm not defending anything?

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

Nope not at all. TCD is in the University of Dublin (and is the sole college in the university). The rest of the colleges are in the NUI (for the most part, I think DCU is outside of the two systems but don't quote me on that).

Now here's the kick in the teeth. The University of Dublin, i.e. Trinity elect as many Senators as the NUI does. The six university Senators are split into 2 pairs of 3, one pair elected by the NUI colleges and the other pair by Trinity grads.

Ludicrous tbh. But then, as a UCC grad I'd have to say that.

People bitch about how graduates get to elect Senators but honestly everyone but Trinity grads are getting screwed over by the current system. My vote as a UCC grad counts for far less than if I was a Trinity grad (in that there are a lot more NUI grads than Trinity grads and the power of your vote is markedly less because of this).

Thanks for clearing that up. So if you are a tcd grad and then do a post grad at an nui do you have a vote in both constituencies?

ateam

NaZionist wrote: »

On a different tack I find it hard to take seriously a man who is in denial about his own baldness. If he can't face reality on a personal level, what other facts does he deny? Donie you're bald, lose the wig, or at the very least get a new one that matches your hair colour. Who knows you could probably put in the receipt as an expense.

This could trivialise the very serious matter of the Seanad. But yes, what sort of man would go on the Late Late Show with such a blatant wig and everybody in the country knows it. Reflects his arrogance.

The senators are out of touch with the public. Even David Norris was shown up. What was his rant at the end supposed to achieve? He should of kept his mouth shut.

NaZionist

NaZionist wrote: »

I noticed that the audience never applauded anything said by any of the senators yet they applauded many of the points made by those who spoke out against the Seanad. If that's a fair indication of what the general populace thinks of the Seanad they should shut the place now.

What sort of republic needs an elite to help govern them? Is someone who attended Trinity a better citizen then me? Should he have two votes? One exactly the same as me and then another in a private election that the vast majority of citizens never have access to but are bound by it's outcome?

On a different tack I find it hard to take seriously a man who is in denial about his own baldness. If he can't face reality on a personal level, what other facts does he deny? Donie you're bald, lose the wig, or at the very least get a new one that matches your hair colour. Who knows you could probably put in the receipt as an expense.

We're a small country. About the size of an American state. Being governed by a government over half the size of the entire US.
We don't need a senate.

People are calling for it to have more power...why? Why not just get rid of it. We've done without it for so long. If we end up getting to vote for the senate, what difference would it make? It would just reflect the Dail in party numbers and voting power and make not one bit of difference to any bill passed.

TomRooney

mikemac wrote: »

A republic needs a senate. But a strong senate with proper oversight resposibilties and not the retirement home and protege grooming scheme we have now.
Are there republics out there without a senate?

When the 1937 constitution was drawn up it could have been rejected and Dev asked for a stronger President and a stronger Senate.
But it didn't happen so realy, it could need a referendum to get rid of the senate.

I say keep it

well if what you say is true, then surely these people out of a sense of duty and patriotism should attend the senate on a voluntary basis, i wonder how many of these senators would be arguing in favour of keeping the senate if it was actualy a voluntary institution......my guess is none.

turgon

Its funny, the people who bitch about the way Cowen runs the country are also the ones who want the Seaned abolished instead of reformed. They obviously cant see that the lack of an effective Seaned is the reason PMs have such power here.

turgon

turgon wrote: »

Its funny, the people who bitch about the way Cowen runs the country are also the ones who want the Seaned abolished instead of reformed. They obviously cant see that the lack of an effective Seaned is the reason PMs have such power here.

Just to repeat: If we end up getting to vote for the senate, what difference would it make? It would just reflect the Dail in party numbers and voting power and make not one bit of difference to any bill passed.

turgon

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Just to repeat: If we end up getting to vote for the senate, what difference would it make? It would just reflect the Dail in party numbers and voting power and make not one bit of difference to any bill passed.

*sigh*

In the same way that the number of members each party has in the county councils exactly reflects the dail? I think not.

One could obviously have a different form of voting too.

turgon

turgon wrote: »

*sigh*

In the same way that the number of members each party has in the county councils exactly reflects the dail? I think not.

One could obviously have a different form of voting too.

*Sigh*

Such as?

And how do you propose we elect to the senate then? People aren't going to put FF as number one and then elect FG for the senate so that their choice of TD can have his bill's blocked.

I havn't so far seen one decent point as to why the senate is needed.

The only elected person with the power to block anything is the President and he/she is generally supported by the government in power at the time.

turgon

Rojomcdojo, if one was to plot support for FF in the last few years it would look like a series of bumps, with the high point being general elections and the low local elections.

Even just having a senate election in the middle of two general ones would give a different senate compositions.

If party lists are used a more diverse range of parties is formed, which is disadvantageous to both FF and FG, though unfortunately not to the left wingers.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up. So if you are a tcd grad and then do a post grad at an nui do you have a vote in both constituencies?

I think it's where you did your undergrad that decides which constituency you're part of. But I could be wrong.

livvy

Not a fan of Pat K. but i feel he represented joe public with his line of questioning.

Mikel

This will be seen to be up there with P Flynn in terms of pomposity, bluster and downright arrogance.
O'Doherty didn't have to argue against them, just let them dig a deeper hole for themselves.

dave-higgz

The point was made on the show that Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese were political failures at first and then rose up. The point trying to be made that the Seanad gives people a second chance. Then you hear Dan Boyle on about his 5,000 first preference votes. Maybe you should have done more to convince some second preference voters!!

If you are rejected in politics you are obviously not ready yet or are just not suited for the job, that's what democracy is all about. the Mary presidents were rightly turned down at the time and then matured and proved themselves, however they didn't waste taxpayers money in their own political experience gathering. We the taxpayer are not going to fund the raring of new politician's, they can do that in their own time!

dave-higgz

dave-higgz wrote: »

The point was made on the show that Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese were political failures at first and then rose up. The point trying to be made that the Seanad gives people a second chance. Then you hear Dan Boyle on about his 5,000 first preference votes. Maybe you should have done more to convince some second preference voters!!

If you are rejected in politics you are obviously not ready yet or are just not suited for the job, that's what democracy is all about. the Mary presidents were rightly turned down at the time and then matured and proved themselves, however they didn't waste taxpayers money in their own political experience gathering. We the taxpayer are not going to fund the raring of new politician's, they can do that in their own time!

I'm not quite sure how Mary McAleese has 'proved' herself, besides proving that she can get elected with the backing of FF which were the most popular party at the time.

I mean honestly, if it was just coming up to her second term now, Dustin the turkey could run against her and win.

old boy

ahh poor ould senator donie (the wig) cassidy who used to / does have his passport name as senator donie cassidy, so as to get top treatment when he goes to the U.S. with his country and western acts. the most important thing is has anyone who died for this country died for this ****e (the senead)

nesf

Listening to it. Doherty (the person representing the abolition side) did nothing but repeat the same populist nonsense. At no point did he show any detailed knowledge of the workings of the institution he wants to get rid of, which should worry anyone finding themselves agreeing with him.

The Senators spouted the same Political self-important guff. But they're politicians who don't get much air-time so honestly, what you expect.


I'd heavily favour reform of the Seanad and it being made a second house elected by universal franchise that has teeth and can act as a balance to the powers of the Dáil. We theoretically all get to elect Senators since we elect the Councillors who elect them, but ideally a clearer mandate to people would be preferable.

Though deciding how to draw the constituencies would be a bloody problem.


Edit:

For any who missed it you can get it with this link: http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/

It starts after the first hour, so you can skip all that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

not bad idea. might help to combat the Senate elections becoming a mirror of the Dail. Help to create proper oversight.

a system like this would prevent failed Dail runners being parachuted into the Senate, a system which is pretty much a joke

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

God no, we should look at larger constituencies that the ones that elect TDs to actually get around some of the parish pump stuff. Something more similar to the way EU constituencies are drawn would be better I think.

Het-Field

Thank God for Bernard Dunne and the Cardiff 22. Otherwise, I would have gone through this weekend feeling embarressed to be Irish.

What Dunne and O Driscoll and co have done for Ireland has far outstripped anything Donie Cassidy or Alex White have ever done politically.

Lisa McDonald clearly has a short term memory. How dare she call the tribunals "disgusting", when their raison d'etre was stimulated by people like the man who appointed her to the Seanad, and many others in her Party (i.e. Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor (RIP), Frank Dunlop, Charles Haughey).

Martin Brady was rejected by his Dail constituency, and was then rejected by his Seanad Constituency. Where is the democracy in bertie appointing him to the upper house ? Ditto Ivor Callely, and Maria Corrigan.

That debate showed how vacuous and ridiculous the members of the Upper House are. David Norris (along with his fellow University Senators) are the only members who use that house its its most valid manner. The rest are political has beens, serial losers, or friends of the right circles.

What a waste of time, and in its current form, a waste of money.

dave-higgz

Het-Field wrote: »

(i.e. Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor (RIP), Frank Dunlop, Charles Haughey).

no RIP for Haughey????

Sand

Its just a talking shop that serves no purpose for Ireland. Which would be fine if it cost us nothing. Unfortunately it does, and the money spent on failed politicians, sycophants and wasters could be better spent on health if it saved even one life.

EDIT - And has already been noted, the audience [ which as Pat cheekily noted contained more Senators than you would see in the Seanad any day of the week] cheered for the remarks and comments that were hostile to the senators and at best the Senators received frosty, cordial silence when they made their comments. Donnie was being jeered and ridiculed by the end. There is huge anger in this country, and there is a mandate for huge change too - I believe people might just be comprehending at last that they are the taxpayer, that is THEIR money that is being wasted. It could be a massive advance in Irish civic society, where people take ownership of their government and expect more than simply showing up at a wedding or funeral or filling in a few forms.

Hopefully Fianna Fail will be broken at the next Dail election [ the Euros are immaterial] and every voter who is canvassed by some **** kicking village idiot of a potential TD demands what are they going to do to confront the waste and corruption in Ireland, and if they get a Donnie style answer they get told they or their party will never get a vote again. The lesson has to be drilled into the heads of these morons again and again and again and again. The mercs and perks and brass necking is over.

Mr.Micro

2 flocks of sheep one in the Dail and the other in the Seanad. There needs to be a cull, as one is mostly pointless and the other is purposeless.

Dannyboy83

nesf wrote: »

I'd heavily favour reform of the Seanad and it being made a second house elected by universal franchise that has teeth and can act as a balance to the powers of the Dáil. We theoretically all get to elect Senators since we elect the Councillors who elect them, but ideally a clearer mandate to people would be preferable.

I like your point, but I just don't see how its feasable with such a small population. We already have inept TDs scratching each others backs and shafting the electorate. Corruption in such a small population seems to spread like mould on an old soggy piece of bread.

Wouldn't we simply end up with the same problems facing us now, where our TDs work together for their own benefit, and anything of possible benefit to the electorate gets lost in all the bickering?

How could we structure the Seaned to ensure this wouldn't happen?
Elect them from Europe?

oscarBravo

If we're going to reform some part of the Oireachtas, I'd start by removing the whip system from the Dáil. The Seanad is the least of my worries at the moment.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

If we're going to reform some part of the Oireachtas, I'd start by removing the whip system from the Dáil. The Seanad is the least of my worries at the moment.

Now that would be interesting.