Abolishment of the Seaned on the agenda for March

Liam Byrne

It was pointed out on one of the talkshows that having this on the day of the election is is yet another pitiful diversionary tactic by FF; having people discussing the merits or otherwise of the Seanad in the immediate run-up to the election will dilute any discussion of how crap and corrupt FF have been, and how implicated they are in the causes of the recession.

If they had it in tandem with the Presidential Election it might make more sense, and might actually be in the interests of the country, but no.....even when FF do something that's even half-right, they do it for their own selfish reasons and not for the good of the country.

mgmt

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It was pointed out on one of the talkshows that having this on the day of the election is is yet another pitiful diversionary tactic by FF; having people discussing the merits or otherwise of the Seanad in the immediate run-up to the election will dilute any discussion of how crap and corrupt FF have been, and how implicated they are in the causes of the recession.

If they had it in tandem with the Presidential Election it might make more sense, and might actually be in the interests of the country, but no.....even when FF do something that's even half-right, they do it for their own selfish reasons and not for the good of the country.

It is better that it is done now. When Labour/FG get into power, they might get too comfortable with putting their cronies into Seanad.

If the referendum passes on election day, will the Seanad be abolished immediately? Would there be another term of the Seanad?

Liam Byrne

mgmt wrote: »

It is better that it is done now.

I disagree.

It needs to be done, and soon, but allowing it to interfere with the key economic progress of this country and distract from the debate about the lack of credibility of FF & The Greens is just repeating the mistake made when they all got distracted by Ahern's trips to the Tribunal and his lies 5 conflicting explanations for the same thing.

mgmt

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I disagree.

It needs to be done, and soon, but allowing it to interfere with the key economic progress of this country and distract from the debate about the lack of credibility of FF & The Greens is just repeating the mistake made when they all got distracted by Ahern's trips to the Tribunal and his lies 5 conflicting explanations for the same thing.

Yes, it will be a distraction, but I think the country has already made up their mind on this election. The FF/Green traitors will be wiped.

Jayuu

I think the point here is that over the years far too much power has been consolidated by the executive. Not only is the Seanad almost completely irrelevant, the Dáil is increasingly becoming powerless as well. In addition much power has now been put in the hands of non-elected quangos (the HSE being a prime example).

We need to reform our political system to loosen the power of the executive. But we could do that and still eliminate the Seanad. I'd ask those in favour of keeping it to tell me what role they would have the Seanad perform and how it would be constituted? Other questions arise from the answers such as the balance of powers between the two houses.

+1 @ Sulmac's proposals which are very similar to my idea of reform of our political system.

ninty9er

mgmt wrote: »

If the referendum passes on election day, will the Seanad be abolished immediately? Would there be another term of the Seanad?

It would depend on the wording, but it's technically possible that the current Seanad could be the last.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

It would depend on the wording, but it's technically possible that the current Seanad could be the last.

Interesting. So FF are likely to ensure that there's no FG equivalent of Eoghan Harris appointed on the whim of an idiot to publicly defend the indefensible ?

Good for the country I guess, but it's interesting that they're only doing it now when it's to their benefit, and haven't done it prior to now.

ninty9er

Personally I think it's a bad idea in general.

imme

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Why is the Dail so necessary? Its core function, that of legislating, is invested in the hands of the cabinet. Besides the parish pump functions and the weak accountably of parliamentary debates, the Dail basically amounts to an electoral collage like that of the US Presidential Election. Once the Taoiseach is elected it serves no very important function. The debates in the Dail are of a generally poor standard, especially when compared to the debates in the House of Commons.

As regards your point that "there is evidence of unicameral parliaments that function fine": how do you define fine? From an external perspective one might have said that Ireland's parliamentary system worked "fine" during the boom, while all the while it was investing a disproportionate amount of power in Bertie Ahern, who then used that power irresponsibility.

why the obsession with comparing Irish with US system. The Dail is not an electoral college. It debates and votes on legislation. A Taoiseach cannot bypass this step. There is no comparison between Irish & US systems, it's comparing 2 systems that are not alike.

There are many unicameral parliaments in the world that work well.

I can't think of significant piece of legislation that originated in the Seanad in the last 20-years.

jmayo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The old "there is no alternative" lie as used for NAMA, Anglo & the bank pensions might be trotted out again.

Why actually do their jobs & evaluate the BEST option for the country when those - er - worked so well?

Against : we lose the likes of Shane Ross
For : we lose the likes of Eoghan Harris

Tough call on that trade-off alone.

About the only plus of the Senate has been the incisive questioning of bankers, civil servants by Shane Ross.
Added to that Fergal Quinn has brought out a new bill on paying subcontractors and Eugene Reagan continued higlighting the slanderer o'dea.
Bar these and David Norris the place is devoid of any worthwhile contributors.

Wide Road wrote: »

We will still have Shane in the paper.
Just remind me again, which paper?

What are you always trying to insinuate about Shane Ross ?
Yes he writes for a sh** paper that has only a couple of worthwhile journalists like himself and Gene Kerrigan, so what ?

Perhaps you don't like the guy because he questions the dodgy dealings of the bankers, the supporters of ff or the dodgy dealings of the ff ministers such as lenihan and how he appointed ex ffers to the Anglo board ?

bamboozle wrote: »

its been decades since the Seanad last rejected a Dail Bill. its a toothless body which exists to provide a salary to failed TD's and buddies of the govt, an expense we can do without.

Actually Fergal Quinn is trying to get a new bill through the Dail, that would make companies like Pierse construction repsonsible for paying their subcontractors and not leave them high and dry.

He is trying to get the greens to push it through.
Myabe the ffers might help, but then again they might not want to ruffle the feathers of their supporting developers and builders. :rolleyes:

imme wrote: »

why the obsession with comparing Irish with US system. The Dail is not an electoral college. It debates and votes on legislation. A Taoiseach cannot bypass this step. There is no comparison between Irish & US systems, it's comparing 2 systems that are not alike.

There are many unicameral parliaments in the world that work well.

New Zealand being one prime example and it is in a country that would have similar sized population.
Hell they have many less members of parliament and ministerial numbers as well.

imme wrote: »

I can't think of significant piece of legislation that originated in the Seanad in the last 20-years.

Check out Fergal Quinns bill on paying subcontractors. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

imme wrote: »

The Dail is not an electoral college. It debates and votes on legislation. A Taoiseach cannot bypass this step.

He doesn't have to. The "debates" are redundant, and the votes are a foregone conclusion.

Jayuu

oscarBravo wrote: »

He doesn't have to. The "debates" are redundant, and the votes are a foregone conclusion.

The fact that a government has a majority is not somehow a diminution of democracy. Yes there should be more debate and discussion in the Dáil (or in its committees) but that's how government works. Parties create a majority and then implement a programme. What alternative are you offering?

oscarBravo

Jayuu wrote: »

What alternative are you offering?

Elimination of the whip system, so that bills can get voted for or against by individual TDs on their merits. If a whip is needed, reserve its use for those votes that can bring down a government (money bills and votes of no confidence).

Jayuu

And can you show an example of a representative democracy where such a system is in operation or works?

I'm not having at go here but its just too easy sometimes for people to talk about "citizen's assemblies" and "free votes" as if they somehow will create a utopian system but I suspect it would lead to paralysis and be even more unworkable.

You only have to look at the US model where amendments and riders get added to practically ever bill and creates a whole system of "pork barrel" politics and other trade-offs that happen to try and lure people into voting for bills.

We elect governments to implement policies (or we should be doing that at least) and while sometimes the parties we vote for don't get in, if other parties can put together a majority in the parliament then we live with that.

If there was some formal mechanism to allow for the creation of cross-party bills then that would be helpful. I also think there should be more discussion among parties before bills are published in order to create consensus where possible, but ultimately parties have different ideologies and its not going to work all the time.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Elimination of the whip system, so that bills can get voted for or against by individual TDs on their merits. If a whip is needed, reserve its use for those votes that can bring down a government (money bills and votes of no confidence).

I don't think that would work. It's deeply ingrained in the political culture that opposition TDs oppose anything and everything a government brings forward, using the specious rationalisation that it is the government's duty to somehow "produce" a majority. There has been only one serious effort to depart from the custom of the opposition voting against everything, the Tallaght strategy, and that put paid to Alan Dukes's career.

And we see what happens when the government is in difficulty building a majority: they have to strike deals with the likes of Jackie Healy-Rae.

My concern is the relationship between the government and the Dáil. One of the important functions that the Dáil should have is scrutiny of government actions. That does not happen in any meaningful way. Parliamentary questions, especially Taoiseach's questions, are used for point-scoring and posturing. Both sides of the house are at fault in this. When, after the next election, we have a change of government and opposition, this is unlikely to change.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gbee

In principal OP, I agree with your post.

But we have seen the senate being used as a retirement home for politicians and a holding cell for those rejected at the polls, like that great Green Twitterer from Cork.

I really don't see reform and where reform should take place is in the electoral process.

A non vote much be allowable which says none of the above.
A majority form the register and not from those who actually voted has to be brought in.

It's ridiculous that say 50% of the population vote and a Government is formed from this, they can't have a majority mandate. And then when people get voted out, a Taoiseach can override the public by putting him/her in the Seanád.

And this is why I'd prefer to see it gone. Get the voting right and numbers down and their salaries and pensions down and then maybe we could consider a re-introduction.

oscarBravo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think that would work. It's deeply ingrained in the political culture that opposition TDs oppose anything and everything a government brings forward, using the specious rationalisation that it is the government's duty to somehow "produce" a majority. There has been only one serious effort to depart from the custom of the opposition voting against everything, the Tallaght strategy, and that put paid to Alan Dukes's career.

And we see what happens when the government is in difficulty building a majority: they have to strike deals with the likes of Jackie Healy-Rae.

I agree. We need a root-and-branch reform of the entire system of national governance. I don't know how that's going to happen, but abolition of the Seanad is missing the point completely.

My concern is the relationship between the government and the Dáil. One of the important functions that the Dáil should have is scrutiny of government actions. That does not happen in any meaningful way. Parliamentary questions, especially Taoiseach's questions, are used for point-scoring and posturing. Both sides of the house are at fault in this. When, after the next election, we have a change of government and opposition, this is unlikely to change.

Again, agreed. I've complained before about the lack of separation of powers in Ireland. And again, I'm at a loss as to how to fix it.

Dots1982

Abolishing the Seanad is a good start but what we need is a new political party who's aim it is to introduce political and constitutional reform, the type of which Sulmac is talking about on page 2. This BS about you should be able to contact your local TD to do you favours is complete rubbish. Strenghten the local authorities, have about 100 TDS who cannot intervene in parish pump politics, larger constituencies.
In addition cut public service workers who do nothing, why do we tolerate having people in state departments etc who have an "easy job for life"? Run the public service sector more like the Private sector.
Hopefully this party will emerge but there's very little sign of it because at the moment what's filling the vacuum from voter disilliousment is Sinn Fein who if they got into power would drive the country over a cliff.

dermot_sheehan

The problem is that once someone is elected, there is a major disincentive to change.

That's why FF carrying out reform in its last days in office might be more effective then FG/Labour starting out. So many FF Senators will be gone in any case they may vote to abolish the Seanad. Similarly they may be more inclined for electoral reform then a new crop of FG/Lab TD's elected under the current system.

The cynic in me things that since if Seanad Eireann rejects a non-money bill, the Dail has to pass a resolution 90 days after under Article 23 of the Constitution for it to pass that is may be a delaying tactic to stay in power.


As a small plug, the reform society I'm involved with is in favour of abolishing the Seanad, 100 TDs with half elected from a national list.

finbar10

oscarBravo wrote: »

Elimination of the whip system, so that bills can get voted for or against by individual TDs on their merits. If a whip is needed, reserve its use for those votes that can bring down a government (money bills and votes of no confidence).

A proper executive/legislature separation of powers would be the best way to do this I think (worth even some increased gridlock).

But another effective (and not too radical) means to achieve this would be to introduce a "constructive vote of no confidence" mechanism into the constitution. Germany, Spain and some other countries have this. Under a "constructive vote of no confidence" system, a government would not fall for losing a majority, it would only fall if a majority of Dáil deputies voted against it in a constructive vote of no confidence. "Constructive" means that a vote of no confidence is only allowed if the name of an alternative Taoiseach is attached. If the motion succeeds then that person becomes Taoiseach and can appoint a new cabinet. Such a mechanism often exists in fixed term parliaments. But it wouldn't be necessary to have fixed terms. Would also be possible to allow a Taoiseach to resign in the usual way and call a general election (but you'd have to prohibit this once a constructive motion of no confidence had already been tabled).

The 1996 Constitution Review Group, chaired by TK Whitaker, actually recommended the introduction of such a provision (see pages 86-88 of their report for proposals and wordings).

It would greatly reduce the need for a government whip. This would then really only be absolutely necessary for no confidence motions. It would allow much greater scope for backbencher rebellions, knowing that they wouldn't be facing an automatic election. Such a mechanism would likely increase independence of the Dáil in relation to the executive, whilst also in some ways also making the Taoiseach/cabinet itself more secure.

Anyway, this is about the only non-radical suggestion I've come across that might actually reduce the power of government whips in the Dáil.

Belfast

apart from getting rid of the seanad or dail ,
getting the elector register up to date and keeping it up to date up be a good political reform.

along with compulsory voting.

mikemac

Belfast wrote: »

getting the elector register up to date and keeping it up to date up be a good political reform.

A lot of work was done on this in 2005. I know because I did the door to door visits for the local council in the evenings for a few weeks
My landlord hooked me up with a job, isn't that always the way, who you know

The papers had a number of stories on the issue in 2004 & 2005 so Dick Roche launched into it and the councils had to sort it out.

I would think it's in better shape now. However this was all a few years so maybe it's worsened again.

Jayuu

feelingstressed wrote: »

A lot of work was done on this in 2005. I know because I did the door to door visits for the local council in the evenings for a few weeks
My landlord hooked me up with a job, isn't that always the way, who you know

The papers had a number of stories on the issue in 2004 & 2005 so Dick Roche launched into it.

I would think it's in better shape now. However this was all a few years so maybe it's worsened again.

There is a census this year. I don't see why the information here can't be leveraged into the electoral register. It would be too late for this election assuming it does happen in March but at the very least it could be used to spot gaps in the register.

Wildlife Actor

Good points, Sulmac, Rocky, Finbar10.

The biggest single flaw with the senate has got to be the Taoiseach's nominees. That should change, irrespective of anything else.

In the absence of any real debate in the Dail, the relative independence and whiplessness of Senators has given rise to some interesting and constructive debate, as well as some useful amendments to legislation. Debate is not supposed to be all about "blocking" - proposing amendments is not blocking. But in any event, it is only right that the powers of the senate should be limited. In some ways that is its advantage: because it will not bring down a government its members can thrash out points more openly and honestly.

While not everybody gets to vote for senate elections, the system tends to result in representatives with more specialist expertise than TDs (Taoiseach's nominees excluded), thereby improving the quality of debate.

IF the Dail was reformed, then there might be good reason to jettison the Senate entirely. In the meantime, it's obvious that FF is all about a political stunt and nothing more.

Liam Byrne

Personally, I would suggest a non-party-political Seanad (or at the very least certainly with no appointees) that would have the power to veto or push ill-advised legislation back to the Dáil for review.

Add that to a new 100-seat Dáil with a list system and with an immediate dismissal if people interfered with local constituency stuff or if they didn't reach agreed targets) and a complete abandonment of the whip system with all votes publically listed on a website.

A reform of pay & expenses overseen by independent third-parties, and a ban on multiple pensions and a complete veto and ban on all PR spin-merchants and expensive advisors.

Plus a review of the qualifications that a Minister might have for a particular position.

THEN we might have made a start on true reform.

Belfast

feelingstressed wrote: »

A lot of work was done on this in 2005. I know because I did the door to door visits for the local council in the evenings for a few weeks
My landlord hooked me up with a job, isn't that always the way, who you know

The papers had a number of stories on the issue in 2004 & 2005 so Dick Roche launched into it and the councils had to sort it out.

I would think it's in better shape now. However this was all a few years so maybe it's worsened again.

where I live it is well out of date.
dead people still on the register and and people who left the county 7 years ago still on the register

Sardonicat

The fact that abolition is on the table and not reform screams of a knee jerk, populist stunt. We are politically illiterate as a nation and the appetite and aptitude for debate about reform isn't there. The parties know this and are banking on it to get this through.

Reform it most certainly, but abolishing the second house without any attempt at reform is madness.

We gets what we votes for, folks. Don't say ye weren't warned.

Belfast

Sardonicat wrote: »

The fact that abolition is on the table and not reform screams of a knee jerk, populist stunt. We are politically illiterate as a nation and the appetite and aptitude for debate about reform isn't there. The parties know this and are banking on it to get this through.

Reform it most certainly, but abolishing the second house without any attempt at reform is madness.

We gets what we votes for, folks. Don't say ye weren't warned.

Political reform by focus group.

mikemac

Belfast wrote: »

people who left the county 7 years ago still on the register

With college and work I left my county years ago but my vote is still there. And I won't be transferring it. I'll vote where I grew up, my choice.

And I'm certainly not alone

If you have friends who left the county but kept their vote there I don't find it strange at all.

ArtSmart

yeah, dismantle the democratic mechanisms - that'll help.

Sardonicat

Belfast wrote: »

Political reform by focus group.

That's right.

Contract, a great expense, social researchers to source randomly selected people, carefully grouped to represent the broad political spectrum.


During the view gathering sessions put some "key words" out there that encapsulate the "core concepts" and encourage the participants to give frank feedback, because their views are important and play a vital role in informing future decisions

Smile and nod politely while the views are being shared.

Then benignly point out how they are all wrong and let them know how it's gonna be.

Thank them for their valuable input, which will of course be raised at your feedback sessions with the policy analysists.

"Don't forget your information packs and to sign up for our e-updates."

invinciblePRSTV

It's a symptom of a backward polity that people vote where they grew up as a child rather then where they live now. The electoral register and its rules are long overdue a major overhaul, part of that overhaul should include mandating people to vote in the constituency where they live now, not where they lived 5/10/20 years ago or where mammy and daddy are.

On Seanad reform, i'm in favour of it's abolition, but as part of a far wider renewal of our decision making process and political institutions. I can't add to some excellent posts already made other then i'd like to see functions of national government devolved to a new streamlined regional government.

But for all their talk and shiny policy documents, i don't think any of the 3 main political parties have the cahones to comprehensively reform our system of governance as they are too entwined in it. I feel the SE will be proposed to be abolished but it'll be a case of as you were for everything else.

gbee

Liam Byrne wrote: »

and a complete abandonment of the whip system with all votes publically listed on a website.

Absolutely, despite the fact that no one might agree on anything ~ I've seen too many politician elected on say anti service charge agenda only to vote them in in their first vote.

If elected on a mandate, they must follow it.

Sparko

feelingstressed wrote: »

A lot of work was done on this in 2005. I know because I did the door to door visits for the local council in the evenings for a few weeks
My landlord hooked me up with a job, isn't that always the way, who you know

The papers had a number of stories on the issue in 2004 & 2005 so Dick Roche launched into it and the councils had to sort it out.

I would think it's in better shape now. However this was all a few years so maybe it's worsened again.

My mother receives two polling cards before every election and appears to be on the register twice. This has been pointed out to officials at the door (presumably doing similar work to you) and to polling officers at the voting hall itself. Despite this, it has yet to be rectified, so I imagine there must still be widespread errors.

PeterIanStaker

gizmo555 wrote: »

There was talk from Senators of taking over the Natural History Museum on Merrion Street.

How appropriate - put them in with all the other fossils and dinosaurs, they'd feel right at home!

Mike 1972

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

It's a symptom of a backward polity that people vote where they grew up as a child rather then where they live now. The electoral register and its rules are long overdue a major overhaul, part of that overhaul should include mandating people to vote in the constituency where they live now, not where they lived 5/10/20 years ago or where mammy and daddy are..

Dunno about that one.

If someones been living away from home for 5 years or more then yeah absolutely but if people are only away for a few months or even a couple of years (especially if its only a temporary thing like college or casual work) then its not so clear cut. Especially when it comes to things like local elections where they mightnt be familiar with local candidates or issues.

Its like the whole votes for emigrants debate. Think people who move abroad long term/permanently should vote in their adopted country rather than one where they no longer pay taxes or abide by the laws of but maybe a case could be made for those who intend returning within the lifetime of the current/next government although Im not sure how this could be determined.

sparkling sea

A second house is always needed in a country as corrupt as ours - but our Seanad needs to be totally reformed because is next to useless and powerless as it stands.

There has been on going investigations into the overhauling and reformingof the Seanad.

These are the recommendations given by Dr Kathleen Lynch.
One of the reasons why the panel system as proposed in the 1937
Constitution has not been effective is because it is impossible to identify the
electoral constituency for any given panel. This problem would be overcome
if a different panel system was in operation. For example, a panel system
could be developed based on the current concept of social partners which
operates in a wide variety of fora including the National Economic and Social
Forum, the Area Development Management System and the County
Enterprise Boards.

The panels would consist of all the registered members of
the following organisations or groups:
panel 1 the employer and farming sectors (IBEC, IFA, ICMSA, SFA,
Macra Na Feirme)
panel 2 National Women’s Council of Ireland and all its affiliated
organisations
panel 3 the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed and other
organisations representing welfare recipients
panel 4 the trade unions
panel 5 youth (18-25). The National Youth Council of Ireland and
other youth groups such as Foroige
panel 6 older people over 65 (National Council for the Elderly)
panel 7 Northern Ireland
panel 8 TDs’ and county councillors’ nominees
panel 9 minority groups (Travellers, disabled people) ITM, DTEG,
DFI
panel 10 MEPs
panel 11 emigrants
The panels would be reviewed every ten years by an independent
commission.
The Seanad needs to be completely independent of the Government and the Dáil
It would give a voice to both broad strands of opinion and minority
viewpoints that currently don’t get a formal hearing in the Irish political
system. And it should have a clear and rational legitimacy
While the Dáil would be the sole body responsible for making and breaking Governments, and would retain the final say on legislation, the Seanad’s sanction of a 180day delay in the enactment of legislation, combined with the possibility of Article 27 referendums, would mean that the voice of the Seanad could not be ignored.
Reform of the Irish Seanad along these lines could result in a body that was a far more vibrant and useful part of Irish political life.

kaiser sauze

It is astonishing how this populist nonsense is actually a serious item for going onto the same ballot as a general election.

The Seanad needs reform not abolishing. The people who are in favour of its abolishing are clearly ill-informed on the uses a second chamber can be put to, and is put to in many countries, in a way that can enhance our democracy.

It costs €28m to run it, I would be happy to double that if we reformed it and made it more accountable to the electorate (as a whole) and made it a stronger check on both The Dáil and Cabinet(government).

Off topic, The Presidency needs more teeth also.

People will say that having all those arms with increased powers will slow everything down and lead to legislative gridlock. I would be perfectly happy with that if it meant legislation was properly debated, which does not happen now as the Credit Institutions Reform Bill proves.

hotmail.com

Upper House with government majority = all legislation is passed (with hours of pointless debate).

Upper House without government majority = all legislation may not be passed creating a huge problem for the government of the day.

Solution - No Upper House.

I've watched Seanad debates on many occasions and I've had to stop because I get so angry looking at them. The "debates" consist of endless elderly people who lost their Dail seat, waffling for hours, using fancy language and they have a smug self-importance about them. They believe that they are "representing the people".

The checks and balances argument can be solved by boosting the power of Dail TDs in the committee stage.

Dev abolished the senate for two years in the 1930s and we survived without it for 2 years.

dermot_sheehan

sparkling sea wrote: »

A second house is always needed in a country as corrupt as ours - but our Seanad needs to be totally reformed because is next to useless and powerless as it stands.

There has been on going investigations into the overhauling and reformingof the Seanad.

These are the recommendations given by Dr Kathleen Lynch.
One of the reasons why the panel system as proposed in the 1937
Constitution has not been effective is because it is impossible to identify the
electoral constituency for any given panel. This problem would be overcome
if a different panel system was in operation. For example, a panel system
could be developed based on the current concept of social partners which
operates in a wide variety of fora including the National Economic and Social
Forum, the Area Development Management System and the County
Enterprise Boards.

The panels would consist of all the registered members of
the following organisations or groups:
panel 1 the employer and farming sectors (IBEC, IFA, ICMSA, SFA,
Macra Na Feirme)
panel 2 National Women’s Council of Ireland and all its affiliated
organisations
panel 3 the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed and other
organisations representing welfare recipients
panel 4 the trade unions
panel 5 youth (18-25). The National Youth Council of Ireland and
other youth groups such as Foroige
panel 6 older people over 65 (National Council for the Elderly)
panel 7 Northern Ireland
panel 8 TDs’ and county councillors’ nominees
panel 9 minority groups (Travellers, disabled people) ITM, DTEG,
DFI
panel 10 MEPs
panel 11 emigrants
The panels would be reviewed every ten years by an independent
commission.
The Seanad needs to be completely independent of the Government and the Dáil
It would give a voice to both broad strands of opinion and minority
viewpoints that currently don’t get a formal hearing in the Irish political
system. And it should have a clear and rational legitimacy
While the Dáil would be the sole body responsible for making and breaking Governments, and would retain the final say on legislation, the Seanad’s sanction of a 180day delay in the enactment of legislation, combined with the possibility of Article 27 referendums, would mean that the voice of the Seanad could not be ignored.
Reform of the Irish Seanad along these lines could result in a body that was a far more vibrant and useful part of Irish political life.

If this unelected chamber of political pressure groups is going to be created why not be honest about it and call it the "Chamber of Social Partners" rather then the Senate.

Special interest groups have destroyed this country and you want to give them a house of parliament.

The IFA/IBEC/SIPTU can partake in public debate like anyone else but they are special interest groups and not legislators, treating them us such led to monumentaly poor policy decisions in the past.

I just want an elected TD who can make compentent policy and legislative decisions and partake in debates who is not beholden to parochial or sectoral special interests like in most industrial democracies.

Is that too much to ask?

kaiser sauze

hotmail.com wrote: »

Upper House with government majority = all legislation is passed (with hours of pointless debate).

This happens in The Dáil already.

hotmail.com wrote: »

Upper House without government majority = all legislation may not be passed creating a huge problem for the government of the day.

Solution - No Upper House.

Simplistic nonsense.

hotmail.com wrote: »

I've watched Seanad debates on many occasions and I've had to stop because I get so angry looking at them. The "debates" consist of endless elderly people who lost their Dail seat, waffling for hours, using fancy language and they have a smug self-importance about them. They believe that they are "representing the people".

Don't blame The Senators for trying to work within the constraints of our constitution. Are you in favour of anarchy?

hotmail.com wrote: »

The checks and balances argument can be solved by boosting the power of Dail TDs in the committee stage.

Why not boost the power of The Dáil itself?

hotmail.com wrote: »

Dev abolished the senate for two years in the 1930s and we survived without it for 2 years.

I may be wrong, but I believe this was a longtime ago? :pac:

If it was such a great move, why bring it back?

hotmail.com

kaiser sauze wrote: »

This happens in The Dáil already.



Simplistic nonsense.



Don't blame The Senators for trying to work within the constraints of our constitution. Are you in favour of anarchy?



Why not boost the power of The Dáil itself?



I may be wrong, but I believe this was a longtime ago? :pac:

If it was such a great move, why bring it back?

Boost the power of the Dail yes.

Simplistic nonsense - explain.

The point I'm making regarding Dev's move in the 30s is that we survived without it for two years.

kaiser sauze

hotmail.com wrote: »

Boost the power of the Dail yes.

Simplistic nonsense - explain.

The point I'm making regarding Dev's move in the 30s is that we survived without it for two years.

Your 'solution' is simplistic because you take the way it operates now and assume that it should just be wiped out rather than using what is already in place and reform it.

And my point on the 30's is that was a very different time to now.

Oasis_Dublin

Do not abolish, reform it. Make it something with power, not just delaying power. Give Senators smaller salaries perhaps.

later12

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree that it was largely the latter; however the Senate did little to change that. And a senate that the other poster suggested, which would be designed so as that it would be highly imporobable to be run by the Governing party, would be, in my opinion, undemocratic and would stifle any potential for bold or decisive action in the future.

Legislative gridlock is not necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather get nothing through than have a dictatorial Cabinet doing whatever the hell it likes.

That would mean, effectively a case of 'as you were' for the economy and for the publci sector. Personally that's not something I would think healthy.

Mike 1972

If the proponents of keeping the senate want to try and change peoples minds perhaps it might be an idea to give specific examples of bad legislation being blocked Or improvments made to flawed legislation passed by the lower house ?

kaiser sauze

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If the proponents of keeping the senate want to try and change peoples minds perhaps it might be an idea to give specific examples of bad legislation being blocked Or improvments made to flawed legislation passed by the lower house ?

This is the point, those who propose abolishing it don't seem to understand that they really do not have the teeth to obstruct legislation. Neither can they compel The Dáil to accept their amendments.

This is why reform is needed.

ArtSmart

sparkling sea wrote: »

A second house is always needed in a country as corrupt as ours - but our Seanad needs to be totally reformed because is next to useless and powerless as it stands.

There has been on going investigations into the overhauling and reformingof the Seanad.

These are the recommendations given by Dr Kathleen Lynch.
One of the reasons why the panel system as proposed in the 1937
Constitution has not been effective is because it is impossible to identify the
electoral constituency for any given panel. This problem would be overcome
if a different panel system was in operation. For example, a panel system
could be developed based on the current concept of social partners which
operates in a wide variety of fora including the National Economic and Social
Forum, the Area Development Management System and the County
Enterprise Boards.

The panels would consist of all the registered members of
the following organisations or groups:
panel 1 the employer and farming sectors (IBEC, IFA, ICMSA, SFA,
Macra Na Feirme)
panel 2 National Women’s Council of Ireland and all its affiliated
organisations
panel 3 the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed and other
organisations representing welfare recipients
panel 4 the trade unions
panel 5 youth (18-25). The National Youth Council of Ireland and
other youth groups such as Foroige
panel 6 older people over 65 (National Council for the Elderly)
panel 7 Northern Ireland
panel 8 TDs’ and county councillors’ nominees
panel 9 minority groups (Travellers, disabled people) ITM, DTEG,
DFI
panel 10 MEPs
panel 11 emigrants
The panels would be reviewed every ten years by an independent
commission.
The Seanad needs to be completely independent of the Government and the Dáil
It would give a voice to both broad strands of opinion and minority
viewpoints that currently don’t get a formal hearing in the Irish political
system. And it should have a clear and rational legitimacy
While the Dáil would be the sole body responsible for making and breaking Governments, and would retain the final say on legislation, the Seanad’s sanction of a 180day delay in the enactment of legislation, combined with the possibility of Article 27 referendums, would mean that the voice of the Seanad could not be ignored.
Reform of the Irish Seanad along these lines could result in a body that was a far more vibrant and useful part of Irish political life.

gabhain7 wrote: »

If this unelected chamber of political pressure groups is going to be created why not be honest about it and call it the "Chamber of Social Partners" rather then the Senate.

Special interest groups have destroyed this country and you want to give them a house of parliament.

The IFA/IBEC/SIPTU can partake in public debate like anyone else but they are special interest groups and not legislators, treating them us such led to monumentaly poor policy decisions in the past.

I just want an elected TD who can make compentent policy and legislative decisions and partake in debates who is not beholden to parochial or sectoral special interests like in most industrial democracies.

Is that too much to ask?

em, the list is a representation of well, those pesky types - you know - the 'people'.
(not just special interest groups)and a good list at that.

Jayuu

If we keep the Seanad then a discussion has to be had on how the Seanad is elected and the balance of power between both houses.

If the Seanad is directly elected by the people then how can it be subservient to the Dáil since both houses have a mandate to govern. Why would anybody bother voting for the Seanad if it doesn't have equal power? And if the Seanad doesn't have equal power then how much power can it have? At what point does it become too powerful or too weak? How much can it prevent the government from proceeding with legislation passed by the Dáil?

If the Seanad is not directly elected then can it have the power to subvert the will of the people as expressed in an election by thwarting the government of the day on its legislative process.

As I've said in an earlier thread I don't think the Seanad should be abolished without other parts of the reform process happening. It's why I don't agree with the idea of a referendum on the day of the election.

But I don't think there is any power that the Seanad could have that couldn't be either given to the Dáil committees or vested in independent bodies which are outside the political process. Obviously those bodies would have to have some power to compel the government of the day to act. Again we would have to debate how much power these bodies should have in order to achieve a balance between oversight and political legitimacy.

Our Nordic and Baltic neighbours seem to be able to survive with one chamber of parliament and in fact a majority of countries in the EU only have unicameral systems of government. We can look at those countries and perhaps take the best policies and practices they have implemented for oversight.