FG will cut 20 TDs and abolish Senate, says Kenny

donkey balls

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, there is the Harris/Callely factor.....

+ donnie roof rack cassidy another one who lost there seat in the last gen election and bertie puts him in to a cushy nbr.

although shane ross is very good he campaigned about getting rid of ntr on the m50 and he also highlighted the fas scandal

Mr.Micro

If they get rid of the Senate where will they put all the clowns who lose seats as TD's or those like Harris? The Board of Aer Lingus and other semi state bodies used to be where the loyal supporters were placed on big salaries and perks?

Jim236

Just to echo what some people have already said, I don't think the Seanad should be scrapped, it should be completely reformed. The current elitist system of certain seats being elected only by graduates of certain universities, and the Taoiseach appointing failed politicians, who can't get reelected, to the rest of the seats is a joke. Every seat in the Seanad should be elected by the public, this would make the Seanad more democratic and more accountable, while also getting rid of the public perception that its nothing more than a safehouse for failed politicians. It should also be given more powers as well.

ninty9er wrote: »

Personally, I'd be for reforming the Presidency and giving that Office the powers of the Seanad, essentially, cutting out the middle man.

I'm all for the President being given more powers because atm they can't do anything, and its a waste of hundreds of thousands of euro a year to keep the office. I think all restrictions on the President such as getting the consent of the government of the day to do things like leave the country, address the nation, represent the country abroad etc have to be removed. By having such restrictions in place, it contradicts the requirment of the President themselves to be impartial of any party, because they're effectively the puppet of the government of the day. Whatever the government says goes pretty much.

But your suggestion of giving the President the powers of the Seanad and scrapping the Seanad wouldn't work IMO because it would contradict the present requirement for the President to be impartial to all parties. How can you propose a certain ammendment or block a bill for reasons other than it being against the constitution without being biassed towards 1 particular ideology? Even if you remove that requirment of impartiality, what if the President holds the same views as the government of the day? Then you have all the power of the political institutions resting with 1 party. You're relying solely on the good will of the government to allow debate on bills, and to put in place any proposed ammendments suggested by the opposition. So in that sense theres definitely a role for the Seanad if it is given the proper powers it needs, and if the house is fully elected by the public and made completely accountable.

What I think should happen is the Seanad should be completely reformed, but so should the Office of President. Give both the Seanad and the President more powers, and remove the current restrictions on the President so that the office is completely independent of the government, and given a real and proper role.

rasper

Don't believe Kenny will do either as usual he's just trying to get the public opinion behind him, I'd prefer to see a stronger Seanad directly elected something that keep checks on the government , and take as many those glorified county councillors as possible out and lets be governed by people with a business outlook and the talent to use it

G_R

Jim236 wrote: »

Just to echo what some people have already said, I don't think the Seanad should be scrapped, it should be completely reformed. The current elitist system of certain seats being elected only by graduates of certain universities, and the Taoiseach appointing failed politicians, who can't get reelected, to the rest of the seats is a joke. Every seat in the Seanad should be elected by the public, this would make the Seanad more democratic and more accountable, while also getting rid of the public perception that its nothing more than a safehouse for failed politicians. It should also be given more powers as well.



I'm all for the President being given more powers because atm they can't do anything, and its a waste of hundreds of thousands of euro a year to keep the office. I think all restrictions on the President such as getting the consent of the government of the day to do things like leave the country, address the nation, represent the country abroad etc have to be removed. By having such restrictions in place, it contradicts the requirment of the President themselves to be impartial of any party, because they're effectively the puppet of the government of the day. Whatever the government says goes pretty much.

But your suggestion of giving the President the powers of the Seanad and scrapping the Seanad wouldn't work IMO because it would contradict the present requirement for the President to be impartial to all parties. How can you propose a certain ammendment or block a bill for reasons other than it being against the constitution without being biassed towards 1 particular ideology? Even if you remove that requirment of impartiality, what if the President holds the same views as the government of the day? Then you have all the power of the political institutions resting with 1 party. You're relying solely on the good will of the government to allow debate on bills, and to put in place any proposed ammendments suggested by the opposition. So in that sense theres definitely a role for the Seanad if it is given the proper powers it needs, and if the house is fully elected by the public and made completely accountable.

What I think should happen is the Seanad should be completely reformed, but so should the Office of President. Give both the Seanad and the President more powers, and remove the current restrictions on the President so that the office is completely independent of the government, and given a real and proper role.

this

daithicarr

they should reduce the number to 120 -130, from the current 166. New Zealand has 120.
Could we not have a partial List system, with say 80 locally elected, from redrawn constituency's, so no one can say those guys get more representation.
and 40 from a list system. hopefully then there Will be more from the list system that people will elect on perceived ability to run the country rather than how good they are for the local area.

as for the senate, i dont know enough about its running to comment on it, im aware it supposedly acts as a balance to the dail, maybe if it doesn't function as one it could be reformed in order that it fulfills this function and if not then got rid off.

Red Alert

I am totally against a list system for the lower house. Even in parties there are plenty of people who will not vote for a particular candidate for their own reasons, and they are entitled to do so. A list system would just allow a 'back door' for people like Eoghan Harris and his ilk.

The seanad in its current incarnation would be better off abolished. For example, why can I as a graduate of UCD elect a senator, despite the fact that I contribute little to the economy. Whereas say a plumber or electrician in full time employment and paying tax cannot? It's role as a law refinement outfit is also largely redundant since the committee system works quite well at this. Which leaves it as a scrapyard for failed personalities and mouthpieces for vocal minority interests. Time to close it down.

994

There's no need for a second house, plenty of countries do fine under a unicameral parliament - the two houses are a relic from the nobility/commoner distinction. What we really need is a Dáil that has some actual control over Taoiseach and cabinet - fat chance.

nesf

A list system can work but really we'd just see young TDs being given the boot and old party faithfuls being given seats etc.

Abolishing the Seanad is the wrong way to go, give it some teeth and open it to popular elections and make it a second house that can actually do something rather than it's present Dev set up where the Taioseach gets an automatic majority.

Long Onion

I do believe that the seanad can be important and relevant, if it is properly constructed. Having a general elaction from the public will not do this as we will get the same proportion of the political parties and end up with the same view as the Dail. The problem is that leaving aside Cowen's 11 and the Uni 6, the remainder are elected by circa 900 politicians (ex Dail members, ex-Seanad members, local county councillors etc.) If the Seanad were appointed by interest groups - farmers, employers, trade unions, students etc and given real power to halt or amend bills, we would have a genuine check and balance to the Dail.

This is what the constitution intended.

CJhaughey

daithicarr wrote: »

they should reduce the number to 120 -130, from the current 166. New Zealand has 120.

New Zealand doesn't have an upper house! They abolished it in 1951 because.... it was too expensive to run.

Euro_Kraut

Saying the Seanad should be abolished on account of Eoghan Harris is like saying the Dail should be abolished on account of Jackie Healy Rae.

There might be some good arguments fro abolishing the upper house but not liking certain people that currently sit there is not a very strong one.

nesf

Long Onion wrote: »

I do believe that the seanad can be important and relevant, if it is properly constructed. Having a general elaction from the public will not do this as we will get the same proportion of the political parties and end up with the same view as the Dail. The problem is that leaving aside Cowen's 11 and the Uni 6, the remainder are elected by circa 900 politicians (ex Dail members, ex-Seanad members, local county councillors etc.) If the Seanad were appointed by interest groups - farmers, employers, trade unions, students etc and given real power to halt or amend bills, we would have a genuine check and balance to the Dail.

Giving special interest groups, like farmers, unions and employers the ability to block law would be playing with fire. You'd just end up with a bunch of "single issue" politicians voting on very narrow lines.

Euro_Kraut

Pride Fighter wrote: »

. I believe in a proper bicameral legislature. The current seanad does not ensure this. It was once but DeValera hated its opposition to him and changed the constitution to allow 11 of his pals to help pass any bills.

Sorry, thats bull. De Valera did not have the power to change the consituation at a whim. It would have to have been put to the people.

In any case no such prosposal to ammended the consitution was ever made. See a list here.

squonk

I read a while back that the UK has about 650 MP's for a population of 50-60 Million, we have 166 for 4.5 million. You can do the maths yourselves! By that token we do seem overly represented.

As regards the Seanad, I wouldn't like to see it going, just reformed. It's a bit pointless to the common voter if only certain university graduates and politicians get to decide ti's makeup. I must read up on the electoral system we chose to adopt after formong the state but I'm guessing that quite a large part of it was transferred over from the UK system we were so used to dealing with, with PR adopted as a fairer system. While I agree with Enda Kenny, I don't think, as was said previously by other posters, that he's given the matter the thought it deserves.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Long Onion

nesf wrote: »

Giving special interest groups, like farmers, unions and employers the ability to block law would be playing with fire. You'd just end up with a bunch of "single issue" politicians voting on very narrow lines.

But you assume that they would all have the same common goal - the reality is that in these cases the employers choice would hold a different view than the union's so there may be a chance to arrive at a reasonable compromise. The idea of the Seanad is that it should be a place whereby proposed legislation could be debated in a meaningful way free from political interests. This would avoid the problems that arise with the Dail's construction which regularly sees the guillotining of bills and makes it impossible for the opposition to have any meaningful input into proposed legislation. Whilst it is true that the general election represents the view of the majority, there is always a sizeable minority who deserve at least a voice. This problem is compounded in the case of coalition governments.

The problem at the moment is that the Seanad is too politicised and has no teeth, in my view a reformed Seanad can be valuable as a check to the government. The costs of running it need not be huge if a union rep is already on the payroll of the union, they should continue to remain with the only extra payment from the Seanad being a contribution towards vouched expenses.

nesf

Long Onion wrote: »

But you assume that they would all have the same common goal - the reality is that in these cases the employers choice would hold a different view than the union's so there may be a chance to arrive at a reasonable compromise. The idea of the Seanad is that it should be a place whereby proposed legislation could be debated in a meaningful way free from political interests. This would avoid the problems that arise with the Dail's construction which regularly sees the guillotining of bills and makes it impossible for the opposition to have any meaningful input into proposed legislation. Whilst it is true that the general election represents the view of the majority, there is always a sizeable minority who deserve at least a voice. This problem is compounded in the case of coalition governments.

The problem at the moment is that the Seanad is too politicised and has no teeth, in my view a reformed Seanad can be valuable as a check to the government. The costs of running it need not be huge if a union rep is already on the payroll of the union, they should continue to remain with the only extra payment from the Seanad being a contribution towards vouched expenses.

I find it bizarre that you think a group of special interest politicians would create a situation which would be free from political interests, it wouldn't it'd just change which political interests would be at the forefront. Also, why would we want an employer's group's say on anything but employee law and taxation? Why would we want union views on education or science funding? What mandate would these groups have to hold sway on such issues outside their narrowly defined fields of interest? Never mind actually deciding which groups get a say and which don't which would open a whole separate can of worms.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, um half the majority would be cabinet ministers then?

bSlick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well obviously we couldn't have the same direct % representation as the UK as 46 is just too low to run the country. But around 70-90 would be grand. Seriously the majority of the guys in the dail do f*ck all and dont bother even turning up half the time. The country is very small - 70-90 is more than enough to run the country and provide adequate representation for the people.

daithicarr

bSlick wrote: »

Well obviously we couldn't have the same direct % representation as the UK as 46 is just too low to run the country. But around 70-90 would be grand. Seriously the majority of the guys in the dail do f*ck all and dont bother even turning up half the time. The country is very small - 70-90 is more than enough to run the country and provide adequate representation for the people.

agreed

jmayo

dresden8 wrote: »

I get the distinct impression that Kenny makes policy up on the fly fuelled by the need to get a headline.

He is a terrible leader.

Ah but clowen is an excellent one I bet :rolleyes:

The reason he has done a couple of things without discussing it with every parliamentary member is that he knows they would most likely oppose them.
It would be like asking turkeys to vote for christmas in certain cases.

dannym08 wrote: »

for checks and balances. Say FF have a majority in the Dail and they try to pass a ridiculous law, well there is no one to stop them. The president cant, he/she can only refer if it is unconstitutional, no matter how ridiculous. If the Seanad had power to block/amend laws then they could stop them.

How often has that actually happened ?
After all the taoiseach of the day has the option of appointing 11 of his own people.

Think of Mugabe every time you hear eoghan "s***e blower" harris and you get the picture. :rolleyes:

ninty9er wrote: »

As it happens I had an indepth discussion on this lastnight, not the FG proposal, but the Seanad and PR list system.

The Seanad is a checks and balances measure and although it's not used, allows for the appointment of tecnocrats to Cabinet. That's not a fault of the Seanad, it's a fault of the government of the day...

The likes of Denis O'Brien, Fergal Quinn, Michael O'Leary etc is what we should be presented with, but that would mean giving every citizen a number of Seanad ballot papers...one for the Ag Panel, one for the Comm Panel, one for the Culture and Ed Panel etc...

Out of interest how many times has control of the Seanad being with the opposition ?

Kenny did mention about trying to get people with technical or business accument into positions of power without the election process.

BTW how many times has the Seanad being used to appoint non political types so that they can be given positions of power ?
Was James Douge a seantor when appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1981 ?

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Saying the Seanad should be abolished on account of Eoghan Harris is like saying the Dail should be abolished on account of Jackie Healy Rae.

There might be some good arguments fro abolishing the upper house but not liking certain people that currently sit there is not a very strong one.

Ah come on have you ever listened to Oireachtas Report from the Seanad ?
Donie Cassidys biggest contribution is causing us all to wonder why he wants to be the Donald trump of Ireland, and the likes of Dan Boyle thinks he is the consciense of the place.

Take out the best senator Shane Ross and the few others (Norris, Quinn) that appear to know something or actually want to be there, there is very of substance left.

daithicarr

jmayo wrote: »

Ah but clowen is an excellent one I bet :rolleyes:

.

Didnt see him suggesting that.

Enda does seem to have caught his party on the hop with this one, looks like it wasnt properly thrashed out

ninty9er

bSlick wrote: »

Seriously the majority of the guys in the dail do f*ck all and dont bother even turning up half the time.

I'm rarely in my office, it doesn't mean I'm not doing my job.:rolleyes:

jmayo

daithicarr wrote: »

Didnt see him suggesting that.

Enda does seem to have caught his party on the hop with this one, looks like it wasnt properly thrashed out

As I mentioned already, he did the same with the salary cut.
It left Bruton uttering "wherever my leader goes I follow".

Did anyone see the interview the other night where Kenny had the FG leader in the Seanad, standing beside him.
I'll bet he felt like she was about to stick a hatchett in the middle of his back.

I would bet a fair few FG parliamentary members, especially Seanad members, would be against this so one can see why he just comes out publicly and states it as a policy.
That way he forces them to look like greedy bast***s if they refuse to follow the leaders policy, i.e. the new party policy.

Jeeze people criticise him for not leading one minute, complaining he is all about being part of a team and the next minute he is criticised for not thrashing it out with everyone in the party when he does come out with solo leadership :rolleyes:
As he said once himself ... if he walked on water, they would castigate him for not being able to swim. :rolleyes:

Long Onion

nesf wrote: »

I find it bizarre that you think a group of special interest politicians would create a situation which would be free from political interests, it wouldn't it'd just change which political interests would be at the forefront. Also, why would we want an employer's group's say on anything but employee law and taxation? Why would we want union views on education or science funding? What mandate would these groups have to hold sway on such issues outside their narrowly defined fields of interest? Never mind actually deciding which groups get a say and which don't which would open a whole separate can of worms.

I suppose I should have stated "the mainstream political parties" - the trouble is that because the representation is roughly in proportion to the Dail, all we get is a re-hash of Dail debates and Dail decisions - this being the case, there is no reason for the Seanad existing.

In relation to your questioning why employers may want a say on anything other than employment law and taxation, I would point to the submissions from IBEC, urging the government to reform the teaching of maths to ensure students are better placed for the future. Likewise, I am sure that the Unions may have much to add in other fields, the whole point of the Seanad is to make sure that interest groups not represented by the mainstream political parties get to have in imput into the legislative measures that may affect them.

Judgement Day

Well, I was casting around for 'any' reason to vote FG in the next election and now I have one. The senate is a total anachronism and anybody proposing its abolition has my No.1. My uncle who has lived in Yorkshire since the early 1950s (!) has a vote for the TCD senate seats - where's the sense or fairness in that? As I understand it the senate was largely set-up to give the Protestant minority a voice in the new state and when Dev altered things its original raison d’être was dispensed with. Anyway, what ever the reasons for its set-up it needs to be axed, as does the number of TDs. FG single party government the only way to go.

Dannyboy83

The reformed Seanad sounds good. The thing is, this is Ireland.
This country's population is just too small. Too much nepotism.
Everyone in Dublin knows everyone else.
Inevitably it will become corrupt and bought off by Fianna Failure style sleaze.
If it were appointed from Europe, with qualified outsiders, it might have a chance.

Issues such as "the price of democracy" as spouted by Cowen are irrelevant imo. It doesn't apply to a powerless institution.
Giving them power in the current situation could be a bigger mistake.
You have to clear the earth of plague before you go planting more potatoes, otherwise they will all become infected again.

At the moment, Fine Gael are going to get my vote with Labour being my second choice

will21

Brilliant plan,the night all the senators were on the late late show made my blood boil,clear the out and abolish it.People never even heard of half of them,plus they are over paid,with expenses plus extra for chairing committees etc.Makes me sick.Why should they be payed any extra for these jobs when they are being well looked after.To get rid of 20 TDS will be tough but even half that would be good.Even at the minute wouldnt it be great to see the back of the 3 Marys,dick roche,m cullen,b o keefe to name but a few.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

I'm rarely in my office, it doesn't mean I'm not doing my job.:rolleyes:

I'd hope you're not touring the country's bookshops using your company car while getting paid by your company, though.