Abolishment of the Seaned on the agenda for March

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The governmental system of Ireland severely lacks any restraints on the power of the Taoiseach who, for all intents and purposes, can do whatever he wishes to do. This has had negative consequences. During the latter boom years, Bertie Ahern and his government pushed through terribly unsustainable budgets, and there was nothing that could stop him. A strong second house could have put the brakes on him, or at least forced him to compromise, if only because they wouldn't have gotten the spoils from the populist policies.

Since when has Seanad Éireann ever, in its 88-year history, acted as a 'restraint' on the Dáil? Since when has it been anything other than an Irish version of the post-1911 British House of Lords in its historical origin and power limitations? It's little other than a jobs-for-the-boys club where failed politicians like Mary O'Rourke are dumped, paid a huge amount of money, and end up doing constituency work as senators in order to build their base up for the next general election. It's used blatantly to reward unstable long-established ranters and ravers like Eoghan Harris for coming out on national tv to support a taoiseach. €100,000 of taxpayers' money per annum to Eoghan fúcking Harris. Jesus wept.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If the Seanad goes we will be sealing Ireland's fate as a "democratic dictatorship", to steal a fellow Boardsie's phrase. I think it should be reformed, and reformed in such a way as to make it highly improbable that it could be controlled by the same party/coalition as the lower house. In my opinion most calls for abolishment exhibit exactly the worst of our political discourse: they are populist, not thought through whatsoever and damaging in the long run.

Notions of 'reform' of this jobs-for-the-boys club are naive and idealistic in the extreme and not based on how political patronage works in this state. There's nothing "populist" about my objections to this most parasitical institution. Nothing. So quit the patronising. Whatever point its expert panels might have had in the 1920s the Seanad is pointless in this regard ever since the committee system was developed. The defenders of this institution seem to be completely oblivious to the development of the committee system. Reform of that system makes infinitely more sense than reform of the Seanad. Even if the Seanad had a 'watchdog' role - and it doesn't - there are many other, more cost-effective ways of expanding watchdog powers on the Dáil. Unicameral legislatures work effectively in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Portugal, Malta and New Zealand, among many other states. An examination of these countries will show that bicameralism is merely a preference, not a necessity, to act as a watchdog role on parliament. What's your evidence that these unicameral legislatures are "populist, not thought through whatsoever and damaging in the long run"?

JustinDee

ninty9er wrote: »

Well what you need then is a social worker, not an MP. That's what's broken with the Irish system.

People have become dependent on TDs to an extent where they think TDs are actually getting something for them. The reality is that if they could be arsed to spend a day or 2 hassling civil servants they'd get it anyway.

TDs are national legislators, not civil servant hasslers (in theory.)

Whoa there!
You have absolutely no idea of the circumstances, what led up to or what this entailed. It was a life and death situation and resulted in a preventable death.
Nothing to bloody well do with "being arsed" or not.
Somebody used the Norwegian system as an example and I gave one of a side of its failings regarding accountability and approachability.

Heaven forbid that anyone should petition a representitive for representation, particularly when all other avenues have failed in a bureaucratic nightmare.

P. Breathnach

Rebelheart wrote: »

... Notions of 'reform' of this jobs-for-the-boys club are naive and idealistic in the extreme and not based on how political patronage works in this state. There's nothing "populist" about my objections to this most parasitical institution. Nothing....

Not so. The language you use is populist.

[I'm not making a smart-ass comment: the use of populist language tends to distort political discussion.]

dermot_sheehan

Seanad Eireann has contributed less to the national debate then the letter's page of the irish times and detracts from the authority of parliament.

No one really speaks in favour of the current setup, the defenders of the Seanad are generally political wonks who would like to see it reformed.

The problem is any reform reaches a major roadblock. It either has real powers to block legislation or it doesn't. If it does it blocks the work of the democratic lower house. If it doesn't it is a talking shop.

If it can block legislation, it would be illegitimate for it to do so unless it was elected in a democratic manner. In which case it emulates the lower house and is superfluous. There are no subnational polity's (like states) that need independent representation in an upper house as would be the case in a federal system.

New Zealand came to this conclusion and abolished it's upper house in the 1970's. Many other countries work fine without one, especially small unitarian countries like Ireland.

It's better to have one house of parliament that functions as an appropriate check on executive power and a place where national policy is debated, then to have two houses that do neither, the lower because each TD is busy with parochial issues, and the upper house because it has no power, no popular mandate, and the vast majority of its members want to be TDs so partake in the same parochialism as the lower house.

JustinDee

gabhain7 wrote: »

It's better to have one house of parliament that functions as an appropriate check on executive power and a place where national policy is debated, then to have two houses that do neither, the lower because each TD is busy with parochial issues, and the upper house because it has now power, popular mandate, and the vast majority of its members want to be TDs so partake in the same parochialism as the lower house.

I don't think it makes a difference.
Its not the structure of the political scope in Ireland that shapes the mindset of its incumbents.
The only effect of an abolished Senate is fiscal which would be great but I wouldn't expect any change in political mindset or deed.

Mike 1972

Was actually suprised to here theyre going for this. I know there had been a lot of calls for it but I can think of a many things for which there had been a lot of calls for taking years/decades to see the light of day (if ever).

Dunno why there havent been more calls for the presidency (at least in its current form) to face the chop as well ?

Not mad keen on the idea of cutting the number of TD's though -at least not without some serious reform of the voting system (Im thinking single nationwide constituency with a list system) A large number of representives means smaller parties/minorities have some chance of being heard.

Rebelheart

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The language you use is populist.

[I'm not making a smart-ass comment: the use of populist language tends to distort political discussion.]

So, how would you describe the likes of O'Rourke, Hayes, Cassidy and all the rest of those rejected, overfed parasites getting into the Seanad other than politicians looking after their own, aka jobs for the boys?

Laminations

I'm so cynical of FF that I've little doubt this will be done simply to remove it as a FG election promise.

OhNoYouDidn't

Rebelheart wrote: »

So, how would you describe the likes of O'Rourke, Hayes, Cassidy and all the rest of those rejected, overfed parasites getting into the Seanad other than politicians looking after their own, aka jobs for the boys?

But you are ignoring Norriss, Ross, Quinn etc who all make a valuable contribution.

I don't think anyone is saying the Seanad works as it should, what they are asking is abolishing the whole chamber a wise move? Logically, the same can be said for the Dail and all county councils.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The language you use is populist.

[I'm not making a smart-ass comment: the use of populist language tends to distort political discussion.]

So how about we all continue this discussion in Aramaic :rolleyes:

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But you are ignoring Norriss, Ross, Quinn etc who all make a valuable contribution.

I don't think anyone is saying the Seanad works as it should, what they are asking is abolishing the whole chamber a wise move? Logically, the same can be said for the Dail and all county councils.

The Dail (or an alternative) is necessary, so it can't be abolished. The most we can do is reform.
The Seanad (or an alternative) is not necessary as there is evidence of unicameral parliaments that function fine. So it can be abolished, and even at this we have alternatives (i.e. committees)

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

The Dail (or an alternative) is necessary, so it can't be abolished. The most we can do is reform.
The Seanad (or an alternative) is not necessary as there is evidence of unicameral parliaments that function fine. So it can be abolished, and even at this we have alternatives (i.e. committees)

But in the absence of those alternatives, why weaken the Parliment?

If there are alternatives, I am all for them. I have no particular attachment to the Seanad and it has been abolished before. But in the absence of a meaningful reform, I don't see any logic here that cannot be applied to all aspects of the Irish democratic system

Rocky1948

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But you are ignoring Norriss, Ross, Quinn etc who all make a valuable contribution.

I don't think anyone is saying the Seanad works as it should, what they are asking is abolishing the whole chamber a wise move? Logically, the same can be said for the Dail and all county councils.

They don't because one listens to them. Both of them would make a far greater impact if they had a weekly column in one of the national newspapers.

OhNoYouDidn't

Rocky1948 wrote: »

They don't because one listens to them. Both of them would make a far greater impact if they had a weekly column in one of the national newspapers.

As may be, but thats neither here nor there.

If we are to abolish one of the pillars of state, I would like another pillar there to take the slack. The last thing we need is less oversight of the government.

Again, all this could be used as logic to abolish the Dail.

later12

One question that I find intriguing and one which has not yet been asked is how abolition of Seanad Eireann could warp election results. Presumably many of the more high profile senators in that chamber, such as Shane Ross and David Norris, as well as up and coming Senators would increase the competition for seats in the General Election.

This could actually turn in Fianna Fail's favour. as Senate candidates could replace current, more unpopular TDs in the running for election. I am thinking particularly of popular FF senators like Mark Daly, Maria Corrigan andJames Carroll, although there are more examples. These senators are not generally seen in the same dim light as sitting Fianna Fail TDs are seen, although they may be seen as having some sort of electoral seniority over other candidates and this itself could help in their election to the Dail.

All I am saying is that one should be mindful that Fianna Fail are proposing this move, and it would be foolish to think that they are doing so without any thought given to how it might impact on them come election day.

As for reform of the Senate itself, I have to say I find some comments on here quite bizarre.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think it should be reformed, and reformed in such a way as to make it highly improbable that it could be controlled by the same party/coalition as the lower house.

First of all, why "highly improbable"? That would be a legislative disaster. It would result in a legislature totally impotent of the ability to take bold and decisive action, similar to the equivalent problem in the US. It would be worse for Ireland at a time of such economic upheaval: appropriate budgetary measures would fail, as would the implementation of other austerity measures. I don't see the point in reforming the Seanad if all you would have would be a constant tug of war between the two houses and nothing getting through.

Furthermore, I would be totally opposed to any chamber whose membership was not democratically elected or was distorted so as not to be made up of members of the governing party, having the ability to block or amend democratic legislation.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The institution is tightly woven into the constitution of the state, and the number of changes to be drafted would be large. Some of those changes could be contentious, and in addition to that, we Irish have a record of treating non-contentious matters as contentious. For example, we can look at the fact that we have not yet held the referendum on Children's Rights; this is in large part due to the capacity of some groups to make it a contentious issue.

I suspect that much of our statute law might also need to be amended on the basis that it might have references to the Seanad.

That's not actually a serious problem, the Senate has been abolished before (in 1935, if my basic leaving cert history serves me correctly?). We could simply, as was done then, introduce retrospective legislation which corrects any statutory references to Seanad Eireann by deflecting the Seanad's parliamentary facility back to the Dail. Or as another poster said, extend the Seanad's power to the President, and make her work for her salary. I really don't think that the above is our biggest problem with regards to abolition.

oscarBravo

later10 wrote: »

First of all, why "highly improbable"? That would be a legislative disaster. It would result in a legislature totally impotent of the ability to take bold and decisive action, similar to the equivalent problem in the US. It would be worse for Ireland at a time of such economic upheaval: appropriate budgetary measures would fail, as would the implementation of other austerity measures. I don't see the point in reforming the Seanad if all you would have would be a constant tug of war between the two houses and nothing getting through.

I disagree. One disadvantage of the current structure is that the opposition has the luxury of knowing that they can't make any difference whatsoever to the outcome of a Dáil vote. If they actually had the power to block legislation, they'd have to think more carefully about what to oppose and why.

This would also be a good think from the perspective of forcing the government to craft legislation that actually had a chance of gaining opposition approval. It would somewhat reduce the democratic dictatorship problem we currently have.


All that said, I'm vehemently opposed to the proposal to hold this referendum in March. As P. Breathnach has pointed out, we're talking about a pretty fundamental gutting of the constitution - does anyone seriously think that it could be done properly in the six or eight weeks available before the referendum bill would have to be published?

There are much, much bigger problems with the political structure of this country. If we're going to gut the constitution, we need to take the opportunity to do it properly, and fix those serious problems. Fiddling with the Seanad is precisely the right move for a government to make if it wants to take people's minds off the deep-rooted problems with the Dáil.

I noted in today's Times that there was little support in the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party for a reduction in the number of TDs. Well, colour me shocked to the core.

Eliot Rosewater

I think Sulmac's suggestions are very good, and I am now happy that I put a proviso in my OP (I said "In my opinion most calls for abolishment exhibit exactly the worst of our political discourse").

But the question worth asking: will the system get such reform? As far as I can see, if the Seanad is abolished that is simply that. The current Seanad, in all its mediocrity, is good solely because it has the potential to be reformed. If it goes we will probably be forever left with a unicameral parliament that the executive branch controls. Even proposals to introduce a list system are plagued by this fatal flaw.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Since when has Seanad Éireann ever, in its 88-year history, acted as a 'restraint' on the Dáil?

I made it quite clear in my OP that I want the Seanad reformed, not abolished, so I don't see why you are asking me such questions.

Laminations wrote: »

The Dail (or an alternative) is necessary, so it can't be abolished. The most we can do is reform.
The Seanad (or an alternative) is not necessary as there is evidence of unicameral parliaments that function fine. So it can be abolished, and even at this we have alternatives (i.e. committees)

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.

Belfast

if we are are going to abolish the Seanad to save money,
why not abolish the the Dáil too.

The TDs could become and elector college to elect an Executive President instead

The Cabinet could be proposed by the President and voted on my the elector college.

TDs could then spend their time doing social welfare claims Etc working full time from their constituency offices so no travel expenses travelling to Dublin.

Cabinet members and Executive President must not be member of the elector college.

Legislation can be done by the Executive President directly.

Mr.Micro

I hope it does come to pass that the Seanad is abolished. When it peopled with the likes of Callelly and others like Harris appointed by the likes of Ahern then others who were rejected by the electorate, TD s waiting to regain their seats. A pointless, toothless crony populated drain on the public purse.

mgmt

later10 wrote: »

One question that I find intriguing and one which has not yet been asked is how abolition of Seanad Eireann could warp election results. Presumably many of the more high profile senators in that chamber, such as Shane Ross and David Norris, as well as up and coming Senators would increase the competition for seats in the General Election.

Thats why we can't stop at at the Seanad. Cutting the number of Dail seats to about 100 will increase the calibre of elected TDs.

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: