McCarthy:"Seanad accounts for fifth of total cost of the buildings of the oireachtas"

JonathanAnon

Just heard Colm McCarthy on Radio 1 talking about the report that he has put together for the government. He says that on his analysis of the operation of the government itself and how significant cuts could be made, the only thing that would make a significant difference would be shutting down the Seanad. This, he says, would lead to a reduction of one fifth of the total cost of the running of the buildings of the oireachtas.

Reducing the number of TDs (which was suggested by a number of people texting the show) would not give the same level of return.

brianthebard

Better to make the Seanad more value for money than to get rid of it.

turgon

^ very true. People are keen to deride the government and simultaneously call for the Seaned to be disbanded, but the fact remains that one of the reasons FF were allowed run loose is because there is zero balance of power in the Irish governmental system. The Seaned should be reformed so as to create a genuine oversight body.

dave-higgz

brianthebard wrote: »

Better to make the Seanad more value for money than to get rid of it.

Yeah, most democracies have a 2 house system and it would be seen as a blow to democracy to abolish the Seanad. We need to reform it and make it directly electable. I'd be very much in favour of an Americam stlye model. directly elected Taoiseach, a Senate with 60 people and a house of representatives with 166. Base the cabinet in the Senate instead and have 60 quality people, let the TD councillors complain about potholes in the Dail.

brianthebard

That sounds like inverting the problem dave, I think the two houses need to become more balanced with one another.

Red Alert

The thing is, how do you directly elect the Seanad in such a way that it effectively polices the government?

mountainyman

The Seanad is controlled by the executive. It is just a rubber stamp. Why not abolish it altogether? It was initially intended to be directly elected. The current body is antidemocratic.

Get rid of it.

brianthebard

Red Alert wrote: »

The thing is, how do you directly elect the Seanad in such a way that it effectively polices the government?

You mean how do you avoid majorities? You can't, but that hardly makes it undemocratic. It would be more important imo to improve the role of the Seanad in such a way as to make it in the senators interest to maintain a decent public profile as a public representative who was not willing to be a rubber stamp.

mountainyman wrote: »

The Seanad is controlled by the executive. It is just a rubber stamp. Why not abolish it altogether? It was initially intended to be directly elected. The current body is antidemocratic.

Get rid of it.

How does this make the system more democratic?

Riskymove

Red Alert wrote: »

The thing is, how do you directly elect the Seanad in such a way that it effectively polices the government?

no need to directly elect...give the 11 nominations that the Taoiseach usually gets to the opposition instead....watch the fun begin!!

Mario007

Red Alert wrote: »

The thing is, how do you directly elect the Seanad in such a way that it effectively polices the government?

you could have it directly elected in the middle of the government's term...so for example right now the seanad would be controlled by FG and labor judging by the last elections and would make the job much harder for FF...

oppenheimer1

Red Alert wrote: »

The thing is, how do you directly elect the Seanad in such a way that it effectively polices the government?

How about an 8 year term for the senate? Or have the elections for the senate coincide with mid term elections for the government. Opposition parties always tend to do well in mid terms, so perhaps this would give some balance?

goldenbrown

the seanad, does nothing - n o t h i n g - except divert money away from urgent social areas such as special needs assistants in classrooms,

100's of challenged young irish children - who have a meaningful school day with an sna - need these funds much more than

random examples:
feargal quinn......millionaire/billionaire
eoghan harris....journalist and man of 1000 jobs
joe otoole, qualified teacher
donie cassidy...rich..businessman

and so on and so forth

des omalley proposed closing it in the 1980's...he was right before many on haughey and he was right before many on the senate/seanad

jonsnow

Saw eoghan harris ranting about the public sector and their crazy pay in yesterdays Sindo (my parents buy it).I actually agreed with most of what he said for once but the fact of the matter is overpaid as they are most public sector workers do quantifiable tangible work.But what does he do in his role as (unelected) Senator!!.

As other posters have pointed out Senators get paid an awful lot of money to do literally NOTHING of any value and the other ancillary cost of maintaining this useless parliament are significant as well.Any functions they supposedly have are a reality a total nonsense.ie.as a check on the Dail or helping formulate legislation.They are a very expensive rubber stamp.New Zealand has only one House of Parliament and they cope without any undermining of their democracy (they also have only a 120 M.P.s).Can,t see the turkeys voting for Christmas however.

JonathanAnon

jonsnow wrote: »

Saw eoghan harris ranting about the public sector and their crazy pay in yesterdays Sindo (my parents buy it).I actually agreed with most of what he said for once but the fact of the matter is overpaid as they are most public sector workers do quantifiable tangible work.But what does he do in his role as (unelected) Senator!!.

Yeah, I heard him on with Eamon Keane last week (well, Gilroy filling in for keane). He seems to say a lot of the things that are currently popular to say about cutting public sector pay, though he never takes issue with his own position.

goldenbrown

senators are senators because they are insiders with way more financial resources than the average rich irishperson...every one of them has a l t e r n a t i v e employment options,

new zealand is only one of many democracies with one house of representatives.....

the house of Lords in London was a way of parking the elite aristocracy to enable a democratic parliament...

the senate was created when we didnt know any better..

a demonstration of our maturity as a 90 year old democracy would be to close it,

the only other important parliament we subsidise- apart from the dail - is the growing in significance: E.U. parliament......

if senators want to be public representatives they can go for election

also some senators are elected by national university graduates, like myself, thats not right is it?

brianthebard

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

How about an 8 year term for the senate? Or have the elections for the senate coincide with mid term elections for the government. Opposition parties always tend to do well in mid terms, so perhaps this would give some balance?

I'm fairly certain we don't have mid-terms, since I've never been asked to vote in one.

Rebelheart

brianthebard wrote: »

Better to make the Seanad more value for money than to get rid of it.

turgon wrote: »

^ very true. People are keen to deride the government and simultaneously call for the Seaned to be disbanded, but the fact remains that one of the reasons FF were allowed run loose is because there is zero balance of power in the Irish governmental system. The Seaned should be reformed so as to create a genuine oversight body.

dave-higgz wrote: »

Yeah, most democracies have a 2 house system and it would be seen as a blow to democracy to abolish the Seanad. We need to reform it and make it directly electable. I'd be very much in favour of an Americam stlye model. directly elected Taoiseach, a Senate with 60 people and a house of representatives with 166. Base the cabinet in the Senate instead and have 60 quality people, let the TD councillors complain about potholes in the Dail.

This so-called "reform" mantra has been doing the rounds for years. What purpose does Seanad Éireann serve? It is quite frankly a long standing delusion that Seanad Éireann offers this society - never mind this democracy - anything. This is particularly so since the Dáil's committee system was created in the 1970s, a development which in effect made the "expert panels" of the Seanad superfluous to our political system.

In truth, the Seanad is a resting house for failed politicians of this state, that is those politicians who were rejected by the electorate at election time. The two latest examples of this are Ivana Bacik and Paschal Donohoe who were rejected in the very recent by-election in Dublin north-central. Donnie Cassidy is another, and before him Mary O'Rourke. This institution is the antithesis of representative democracy. In its origins it is simply a creation of the British designed to house southern Unionists and others in order to keep a check on the representative democracy of Dáil Éireann. It is still today merely an Irish House of Lords composed mostly of political appointees, elitist academics and representatives of lobby groups.

Seanad Éireann is also a straightforward tool to reward and bribe people for supporting the government of the day. The notorious example of Eoghan Harris being appointed by the Taoiseach of the day Bertie Ahern to the Seanad following his appearance on TV defending that particular politician should have been sufficient to put the nail in the coffin of this assembly. For this act of intellectual prostitution (or was it political sycophancy?) on the Late Late Show, the Irish taxpayer is paying over €70,000 per year for Eoghan Harris's salary and well over €100,000 when his expenses, advisors and much else are included. We are talking about Eoghan Harris here, not Albert Einstein, John Rawls or Noam Chomsky.

Again: what useful purpose does a "reformed" version of this assemby serve towards making the political system more efficient? Can we live without it?





PS: As you can see from the following two threads, I'm still waiting for somebody to justify why Seanad Éireann is necessary for our political system, what it adds to our representative democracy or how it makes our system more efficient. There's a notion out there about what a Seanad should be like, but there is little-to-no substance to it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055497457; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055497468

brianthebard

Why do you say reform won't work and then point to all the problems there are in the system? You think I or anyone else who supports reforming the senate wants Harris to be there? Reform policies could remove the jobs for the boys/failed politicans aspect of it, and inject real purpose in the House. The British Unionist device was taken apart long ago, the present Senate was created in the 1937 constitution, for a different purpose, so that argument doesn't hold any water, not that it would anyways, considering the Act was approximately 90 years ago. things have changed, things can change.

Rebelheart

brianthebard wrote: »

Why do you say reform won't work and then point to all the problems there are in the system? You think I or anyone else who supports reforming the senate wants Harris to be there? Reform policies could remove the jobs for the boys/failed politicans aspect of it, and inject real purpose in the House. The British Unionist device was taken apart long ago, the present Senate was created in the 1937 constitution, for a different purpose, so that argument doesn't hold any water, not that it would anyways, considering the Act was approximately 90 years ago. things have changed, things can change.

Again, my question remains unanswered: What function does a reformed version of this institution serve this society? To defend it simply because bicameralism is the norm in particular countries is a non sequitur given that many of these same countries had three parliaments for many centuries. Precedence is not an argument for having this assembly. It is simply an excuse to dismiss questions about the validity of bicameralism.

brianthebard

Rebelheart wrote: »

Again, my question remains unanswered: What function does a reformed version of this institution serve this society? To defend it simply because bicameralism is the norm in particular countries is a non sequitur given that many of these same countries had three parliaments for many centuries. Precedence is not an argument for having this assembly. It is simply an excuse to dismiss questions about the validity of bicameralism.

Your argued against having the senate on the 'precedent' that it was a British Unionist invention, is that no longer an argument? What function does any political institution serve society? What is the purpose of a government at all? Two houses would improve democratic accountability and perhaps allow more opinions and voices to be heard. How could a reformed senate with new purpose and definition possibly harm Irish politics?

Rebelheart

brianthebard wrote: »

Your argued against having the senate on the 'precedent' that it was a British Unionist invention, is that no longer an argument?

I argued that the Seanad was established as a means for the British to keep a check on popular democracy in Ireland. It was disproportionately dominated by Anglo-Irish and others who had benefitted from British rule. Its connection with democracy in Ireland was minimal and its very existence was arguably in fact anti-democratic. That is the origin of the institution and a large part of the reason why DeValera originally supported its abolition and abolished it in 1936. The Seanad following Bunreacht na hÉireann was, in fact, the direct successor of the 1922 Seanad and officially termed the second Seanad. It is therefore disingenuous to contend that the post-1937 Seanad had no direct connection with 1922.

Moreover, I pointed this out simply to highlight that from its inception this institution's links with democracy in Ireland has been tenuous at best, at very best. My main point was, and remains, that this assembly is superfluous to the political and democratic needs of this state and its citizens. It serves as a profoundly unnecessary expense and at best a duplication of work already being done by the Dáil committees. It makes this state more inefficient, and that matters greatly.

Rebelheart

brianthebard wrote: »

How could a reformed senate with new purpose and definition possibly harm Irish politics?

Given that the reality of the current Seanad has failed abysmally, causes unwarranted expense and has frequently undermined the democratically expressed opinions of the electorate through the appointment of rejected Dáil candidates to Seanad Éireann I rather think that the onus is on those who advocate a new Seanad to show how it will contribute to this society. We know the reality. What sort of revived Seanad are you proposing and how will it cause less harm to the public finances of the state or, for that matter, to the democratic wishes of people? How will things be any way more efficient?

brianthebard wrote: »

Two houses would improve democratic accountability

Where is your evidence for this idea?

Mario007

Rebelheart wrote: »

I argued that the Seanad was established as a means for the British to keep a check on popular democracy in Ireland. It was disproportionately dominated by Anglo-Irish and others who had benefitted from British rule. Its connection with democracy in Ireland was minimal and its very existence was arguably in fact anti-democratic. That is the origin of the institution and a large part of the reason why DeValera originally supported its abolition and abolished it in 1936. The Seanad following Bunreacht na hÉireann was, in fact, the direct successor of the 1922 Seanad and officially termed the second Seanad. It is therefore disingenuous to contend that the post-1937 Seanad had no direct connection with 1922.

i agree with you on the basis that the seanad should be abolished( or reformed greatly into an institution resembling the dail) but about the abolition of the senate. Senate was dominated mainly by Cumman na Gheal(sorry for the spelling) and they indeed supported that ireland should stay in the union and postponed any laws made by Dev to dismantle the treaty by a year. That's why Dev got rid of it. In the Constitution he created an institution that resembled somewhat the Ministry of corporations. Furthermore Dev wanted an institution where he could have control, thus the Taoiseach's nominees etc...(just to get the facts right)