Abolish Seanad

seligehgit

Mr.Micro wrote: »

All the yes crowd left it to others to vote, believing it in the bag. The no crowd got off their a**es and voted. That's the difference here.

Mr. Micro think you've got it in one re the winning and losing of this referendum.

seamus

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe he could save his embarrassment by now cutting the Dail by 33%.

That's the thing, what embarrassment? Enda won just by holding the referendum because now he can claim to have fulfilled the promise.

I would have more respect for someone who changed their mind and held a proper referendum rather than one who held it just because he promised to. Even Enda knew this was a nonsense referendum so he couldn't stand behind it and debate it in public.

COYW

seamus wrote: »

That's the thing, what embarrassment? Enda won just by holding the referendum because now he can claim to have fulfilled the promise.

True. His pre-election promise was to hold a referendum and he has done that. I doubt that he is too bothered by the result.

The real losers are those who have always been bleating on about how elitist it is i.e. the hard left. Interesting that most counties outside of Leinster voted 'Yes'.

tayto lover

seamus wrote: »

That's the thing, what embarrassment? Enda won just by holding the referendum because now he can claim to have fulfilled the promise.

I would have more respect for someone who changed their mind and held a proper referendum rather than one who held it just because he promised to. Even Enda knew this was a nonsense referendum so he couldn't stand behind it and debate it in public.

Maybe so BUT would that not also mean that his election promises were just hot air and waffle in order to get elected?

COYW

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe so BUT would that not also mean that his election promises were just hot air and waffle in order to get elected?

No, he held the election, as promised.

tayto lover

COYW wrote: »

No, he held the election, as promised.

He did. BUT he also urged a NO vote as did all of his party. Own goal whatever way you look at it.
He also wasted at least 40 million on it.

View

Seaneh wrote: »

Well, that's plain nonsense.
The people weren't offered reform or non-reform.

They were. The reform on offer was abolition. They appear to have opted for non-reform though.

Sir Oxman

View wrote: »

They were. The reform on offer was abolition. They appear to have opted for non-reform though.

That isn't reform, that's simply abolition.
Nothing concrete on reform was on offer - just another IOU from Kenny & Co.
Thankfully, by a slim margin but overturning all expectations, the voting public has rejected that worthless IOU.

Now, I want the government of my country to do what they promised they would and instigate & facilitate real and proper reform in consultation with all.

My name is URL

tayto lover wrote: »

He did. BUT he also urged a NO vote as did all of his party. Own goal whatever way you look at it.
He also wasted at least 40 million on it.

He picked a fight with a soft target and ended up knocking himself out

View

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Well that's not what the government seems to think. Michael Ring has just conceded defeat and stated that it is clear people are demanding Seanad reform, and that is what now must be done.

Why the government didn't realise that before now is beyond me.

That's the standard first step in long fingering something.

"We accept the people's view" whereas the reality is they just want to park it for another day or permanently. It doesn't mean they suddenly support the opposing view at all.

tayto lover

View wrote: »

That's the standard first step in long fingering something.

"We accept the people's view" whereas the reality is they just want to park it for another day or permanently. It doesn't mean they suddenly support the opposing view at all.

Yeah. We saw that with their election manifesto and 5 point plan.

View

Sir Oxman wrote: »

That isn't reform, that's simply abolition.

Abolition IS a reform. It would have reformed the constitution.

Anyone who voted against it, voted for the status quo and against the only reform on offer.

Don't expect anyone to race to offer another constitutional referendum on the Seanad since no one has even suggested a meaningful reform that might command a majority.

Frank Lee Midere

COYW wrote: »

True. His pre-election promise was to hold a referendum and he has done that. I doubt that he is too bothered by the result.

The real losers are those who have always been bleating on about how elitist it is i.e. the hard left. Interesting that most counties outside of Leinster voted 'Yes'.

The hard left and rightist populists. Shure it costs 20M.

Look it needs to be reformed. Let people choose their "civic group" and only one. UCC graduate, public sector, private sector retail, private sector engineer. Etc.


Everybody gets a vote.


We would then just possibly have a house which isn't publicans, teachers and lawyers.

Frank Lee Midere

View wrote: »

Abolition IS a reform. It would have reformed the constitution.

Anyone who voted against it, voted for the status quo and against the only reform on offer.

Don't expect anyone to race to offer another constitutional referendum on the Seanad since no one has even suggested a meaningful reform that might command a majority.

Abolition isn't the only possible form of reform, even though it was the only reform on offer. Simple logic.

uck51js9zml2yt

42500 margin in favour of keeping it just announced in rds

COYW

tayto lover wrote: »

He did. BUT he also urged a NO vote as did all of his party. Own goal whatever way you look at it.
He also wasted at least 40 million on it.

And if didn't "waste" €40m on it and didn't hold the election, you would be giving out about broken promises. You can't have it every way.

As I said before, I don't believe that the result makes much of a difference to him, as his level of canvassing displayed. It was very much a PR, 'I'd held the referendum just like I promised', job, in my opinion.

I voted 'No' and I am happy with the result. The campaign for it's abolition was built on populist guff, which deserved to be defeated.

Lisa2011

View wrote: »

You think so?

Suppose for the sake of argument we abolished the Seanad 20 years ago. Who would today vote for its re-introduction in its current form? How many would vote to re-introduce it in any form? And, if so, which form would we want it to have?

Nobody would vote to re introduce it in its current form if it was abolished 20 years ago. I would like to think that those voted to keep it want it reformed. For me personally I want a Seanad that is elected by me and the rest of the electorate.

seamus

What will happen is that the government parties will talk about how they "need time to go away and think about the result", when really what they mean is they "need time for the result to go away and people stop thinking about it".

The Seanad itself and the opposition need to make sure that doesn't happen and start hammering the government with reform proposals starting today.

Harry Angstrom

Any meaningful Seanad reform would most probably necessitate another referendum. We're not going to see another referendum related to the Seanad for a long time. All the people who voted No (but wanting reform) have unwittingly preserved the status quo for a long time to come. The likes of McDowell and co. have done a good job in ensuring the outcome that they wanted. Most Labour TD's were in favour of retaining the Seanad because it will give them somewhere to go after they get booted out of the Dail in a few years time. Well done people. You've all played right into their hands.

tayto lover

COYW wrote: »

And if didn't "waste" €40m on it and didn't hold the election, you would be giving out about broken promises. You can't have it every way.

As I said before, I don't believe that the result makes much of a difference to him, as his level of canvassing displayed. It was very much a PR, 'I'd held the referendum just like I promised', job, in my opinion.

I voted 'No' and I am happy with the result. The campaign for it's abolition was built on populist guff, which deserved to be defeated.

I am not giving out at all. I'm happy. I voted No.
I bet Enda is not happy though with his bloody nose.

martingriff

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe so BUT would that not also mean that his election promises were just hot air and waffle in order to get elected?

Where have you been for every election for the last x amount of years. The goverment should have told the truth of hard decision that they would have had to do kept the one about wages for the top and they would have been elected regardless I think.

martingriff

tayto lover wrote: »

I am not giving out at all. I'm happy. I voted No.
I bet Enda is not happy though with his bloody nose.

As long as people voted no for the reason of seeing a reform and now they must keep at it rather then voting against the government and just giving them a bloody noose then yes they should be happy.

TheRosseforp

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Any meaningful Seanad reform would most probably necessitate another referendum. We're not going to see another referendum related to the Seanad for a long time. All the people who voted No (but wanting reform) have unwittingly preserved the status quo for a long time to come. The likes of McDowell and co. have done a good job in ensuring the outcome that they wanted. Most Labour TD's were in favour of retaining the Seanad because it will give them somewhere to go after they get booted out of the Dail in a few years time. Well done people. You've all played right into their hands.

Harry, you are clearly lacking an understanding on the topic at hand here.

Greater public representation is proven to pay dividends in many spheres on an economic, social and environmental scale. I think many 'yes' voters have failed to recognise this.

The process around the election of Senators and their lack of operational input is something which needs to be seriously addressed, but not abolished.

I want reform on a local and regional level, although I do not believe that will happen. I voted no to ensure that the centralisation of power is stagnated, the abolishment of the Seanad would have been a move to further concentrate power. This is undeniable.

I would be in favour of removal of the second house provided more local and regional powers would be delegated, but that will not happen. The only option for me was a 'no' vote to preserve our democratic stance, or more appropriately, stagnate its deterioration.

While I understand your ire at the current governmental system and processes, you need to acknowledge the wider picture here. Any contemporary policy will tell you that centralisation of power is an outdated, abstract ideal that is alien from other global democratic states. The media soundbites unfortunately had a large enough effect to convince almost half the voters that this was a good, progressive step. That is utterly frightening, and a sad indictment of our society.

Banjo String

View wrote: »

They were. The reform on offer was abolition. They appear to have opted for non-reform though.

Try reforming an executed prisoner.

tayto lover

martingriff wrote: »

Where have you been for every election for the last x amount of years. The goverment should have told the truth of hard decision that they would have had to do kept the one about wages for the top and they would have been elected regardless I think.

Yes but as Pat Rabbitte said "that's what you tend to do during an election campaign" i.e. lie through your teeth.
The truth is always better than lies.

Harry Angstrom

TheRosseforp wrote: »

Greater public representation is proven to pay dividends in many spheres on an economic, social and environmental scale.

I'm in favour of greater public representation as long as this is done through a democratic process which gives a vote to every citizen of voting age in this country. The Seanad is a complete affront to this and it's not going to change anytime soon.

TheRosseforp wrote: »

The only option for me was a 'no' vote to preserve our democratic stance, or more appropriately, stagnate its deterioration.

Preserving our "democratic stance" by voting to perpetuate a completely undemocratic institution seems a bit odd to me.

Frank Lee Midere

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I'm in favour of greater public representation as long as this is done through a democratic process which gives a vote to every citizen of voting age in this country. The Seanad is a complete affront to this and it's not going to change anytime soon.


Preserving our "democratic stance" by voting to perpetuate a completely undemocratic institution seems a bit odd to me.

So lets reform it. In any case a democracy which produces Mattie McGrath and Michael Healy Ray is hardly exemplary.

Harry Angstrom

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

So lets reform it. In any case a democracy which produces Mattie McGrath and Michael Healy Ray is hardly exemplary.

I've just been listening to Enda Kenny. Plenty of waffle and not much indication that he's going to reform it.

hmmm

tayto lover wrote: »

I bet Enda is not happy though with his bloody nose.

Enda doesn't care. He gets to still hand out very well paid Senate places to politicians who can't get elected, or to young FGers who want to make a name for themselves. The political "class" will be delighted tonight.

When I pick up my next payslip and see the tax I'm paying, I'll think of you.

Orion

View wrote: »

Abolition IS a reform. It would have reformed the constitution.

Anyone who voted against it, voted for the status quo and against the only reform on offer.

Don't expect anyone to race to offer another constitutional referendum on the Seanad since no one has even suggested a meaningful reform that might command a majority.

Reform of the Seanad doesn't need a Referendum. It can be reformed through legislation.

TheRosseforp

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Preserving our "democratic stance" by voting to perpetuate a completely undemocratic institution seems a bit odd to me.

Yes it could seem odd if somebody was unable to acknowledge the bigger picture. Removal of public representation is not in line with modern thinking. Your ire at the institution of the Seanad and its system does not refute this fact.

I agree that there is no meaningful reform going to happen. The 7 page document that was presented would have amounted to nothing had this been passed. Likewise, any blustering of reforming the Seanad now will more than likely prove fruitless.

However, further centralising our power is far more detrimental to our democratic stance and development than keeping a limited and flawed Seanad.

tayto lover

hmmm wrote: »

Enda doesn't care. He gets to still hand out very well paid Senate places to politicians who can't get elected, or to young FGers who want to make a name for themselves. The political "class" will be delighted tonight.

When I pick up my next payslip and see the tax I'm paying, I'll think of you.

You obviously missed the bit where the money saved if the Seanad was abolished would be diverted to the Dail. Nothing would be saved.

Think of yourself.

Harry Angstrom

Orion wrote: »

Reform of the Seanad doesn't need a Referendum. It can be reformed through legislation.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

martingriff

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes but as Pat Rabbitte said "that's what you tend to do during an election campaign" i.e. lie through your teeth.
The truth is always better than lies.

Cool just a question it you do not mind. Did you vote NO for

A. As you think they should be a upper house but reformed ( even thought I voted yes I see the merit) or

B. To give the government a bloody nose.

I voted yes not because I agreed with the government but because I think we do not need an upper house and through other ways it could be done with better cheques and balances

martingriff

Orion wrote: »

Reform of the Seanad doesn't need a Referendum. It can be reformed through legislation.

Yes it does the way the Seanad is and how its voted in is in the constitution so would need a new referendum

Harry Angstrom

TheRosseforp wrote: »

Yes it could seem odd if somebody was unable to acknowledge the bigger picture. Removal of public representation is not in line with modern thinking. Your ire at the institution of the Seanad and its system does not refute this fact.

I agree that there is no meaningful reform going to happen. The 7 page document that was presented would have amounted to nothing had this been passed. Likewise, any blustering of reforming the Seanad now will more than likely prove fruitless.

However, further centralising our power is far more detrimental to our democratic stance and development than keeping a limited and flawed Seanad.

Which pretty much proves my point that McDowell and the so-called Democracy Matters movement have done a very good job in hoodwinking the public into thinking that a No vote was a vote for reform.

martingriff

TheRosseforp wrote: »

Yes it could seem odd if somebody was unable to acknowledge the bigger picture. Removal of public representation is not in line with modern thinking. Your ire at the institution of the Seanad and its system does not refute this fact.

I agree that there is no meaningful reform going to happen. The 7 page document that was presented would have amounted to nothing had this been passed. Likewise, any blustering of reforming the Seanad now will more than likely prove fruitless.

However, further centralising our power is far more detrimental to our democratic stance and development than keeping a limited and flawed Seanad.

Since the Seanad has no real power how could there be a more centralising of power.

Harry Angstrom

martingriff wrote: »

Since the Seanad has no real power how could there be a more centralising of power.

Exactly. How can it be a "power grab" if there's no real power to grab?

hmmm

tayto lover wrote: »

You obviously missed the bit where the money saved if the Seanad was abolished would be diverted to the Dail.

60 senators no longer being required is a real saving of at least 6 million. Not to mention I wouldn't have to put up with seeing Bacik and Ronaaaaan Mullen on my TV which would have been priceless.

Pro Hoc Vice

martingriff wrote: »

Since the Seanad has no real power how could there be a more centralising of power.

One of the lies of this Referendum was the Seanad has no power, it has power, it can amend legislation, it's members sit on committees, the removal of a judge requires its approval. While it can do little in the area of real politics it still does have power, little power but still power. Just because it's only a small amount does not make it any less a power grab. Unlike backbenchers, senators are more free to oppose and promote other views.

TheRosseforp

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Which pretty much proves my point that McDowell and the so-called Democracy Matters movement have done a very good job in hoodwinking the public into thinking that a No vote was a vote for reform.

If you are going to highlight the descrepancies of the 'No' campaign it is only fair you present/acknowledge similar for the 'yes' side. (I could quite easily critique these but we would be here for the night) I agree that there were many populist views spouted on either side, unfortunately that is the way political issues are addressed in this country.

As I said, I voted 'no' not for reform, but to stagnate over concentration of power. I'm sure many voted yes/no under false ideals and pretenses but that is the unfortunate spin off of the ingrained ignorance and unawareness evident in our society.

martingriff wrote: »

Since the Seanad has no real power how could there be a more centralising of power.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Exactly. How can it be a "power grab" if there's no real power to grab?

It removes a platform for local and regional issues to be presented on a political scale. The inherent problem in our political structure is the lack of local and regional power. This is basic stuff to say the least, we haven't even touched the surface of the importance of competitive parliaments.

martingriff

infosys wrote: »

One of the lies of this Referendum was the Seanad has no power, it has power, it can amend legislation, it's members sit on committees, the removal of a judge requires its approval. While it can do little in the area of real politics it still does have power, little power but still power. Just because it's only a small amount does not make it any less a power grab. Unlike backbenchers, senators are more free to oppose and promote other views.

It cant amend legislation. It can offer an amendment that then has to go back to the dail for a vote that it can defeat, The ~Seanad can not stop legislation it can vote it down 3 times but then it goes through.

It can not remove a judge on its own. IT and the Dail together can.

Yes it can sit on committees but so what anyone in power can sit on them

hmmm

TheRosseforp wrote: »

It removes a platform for local and regional issues to be presented on a political scale.

Have you seen the muck that is the normal order of business for the Dail? It couldn't be more local and parochial. The biggest problem in our politics (imo) is too many politicians who spend too much time as overpaid social workers.

TheRosseforp

hmmm wrote: »

Have you seen the muck that is the normal order of business for the Dail? It couldn't be more local and parochial. The biggest problem in our politics (imo) is too many politicians who spend too much time as overpaid social workers.

You are failing to understand what local and regional power actually is. The fact they are talking about local issues in the Dáil instead of being dealt with by local councils and grassroots initiatives within regions is testament to my point. In an ad hoc way we agree, the Dáil has no business dealing with local issues 200km from Leinster House. Decentralisation is the panacea to this problem, removal of the Seanad is the total opposite.

Anybody who believes that less public representatives is a good thing is utterly clueless and oblivious to contemporary policies.

The incompetence of these representatives is a separate issue, not one which should directly pertain to abolition.

martingriff

TheRosseforp wrote: »

You are failing to understand what local and regional power actually is. The fact they are talking about local issues in the Dáil instead of being dealt with by local councils and grassroots initiatives within regions is testament to my point. In an ad hoc way we agree, the Dáil has no business dealing with local issues 200km from Leinster House. Decentralisation is the panacea to this problem, removal of the Seanad is the total opposite.

Anybody who believes that less public representatives is a good thing is utterly clueless and oblivious to contemporary policies.

The incompetence of these representatives is a separate issue, not one which should directly pertain to abolition.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO we don't need a Seanad then for that just reforms in local goverment. I AGREE

tayto lover

hmmm wrote: »

60 senators no longer being required is a real saving of at least 6 million. Not to mention I wouldn't have to put up with seeing Bacik and Ronaaaaan Mullen on my TV which would have been priceless.

The 6 million savings was to be diverted to the Dail.
Not a cent less tax would you have paid.

tayto lover

martingriff wrote: »

Cool just a question it you do not mind. Did you vote NO for

A. As you think they should be a upper house but reformed ( even thought I voted yes I see the merit) or

B. To give the government a bloody nose.

I voted yes not because I agreed with the government but because I think we do not need an upper house and through other ways it could be done with better cheques and balances

Answer -- A. Check yesterday's posts.

Harry Angstrom

tayto lover wrote: »

The 6 million savings was to be diverted to the Dail.
Not a cent less tax would you have paid.

What's a lot more important is that Mullen and Bacik would be gone from our TV screens and radiowaves forever

TheRosseforp

martingriff wrote: »

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO we don't need a Seanad then for that just reforms in local goverment. I AGREE

Yes, I've frequently stated that should more local and regional powers be delegated than I could adhere to the idea of abolishing the second house. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near such a process.

hmmm

TheRosseforp wrote: »

You are failing to understand what local and regional power actually is.

Sorry, I literally have no idea what you're talking about.