Why is the Seanad still around?

Bergkamp 10

I thought this was talked about in government plans to abolish this waste of time. Now dont get me wrong I even voted for one of the senators who got in and many of them are able politicians, but that doesnt disguise the fact that its just another gravy train.

I have no idea how much it is costing , but I will estimate it is wasting a number of millions of euros a year. The last time they overturned a bill was in the 1960s I believe.

We all know we are down the creek without a paddle but the seanad should be targeted, the jobridge scheme is encouraging slave labour and the higher up administration in the PS need wage cuts and fast.

Why isnt this basic stuff being done? If joe bloggs on the street can see this why isnt the government acting now.

The latest cock ups in the dept finance dont say alot for the future.

Overheal

if its anything like the US system: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/whyhouseandsenate.htm

hope that partially answers your question.

harrythehat

I'd say since it's election, the government has had bigger fiscal priorities.

Bergkamp 10

Overheal wrote: »

if its anything like the US system: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/whyhouseandsenate.htm

hope that partially answers your question.

Thank you, but the point I'm trying to make is, the seanad here is meaningless.

They havent voted against a bill since the 60s, these guys are getting more wages , arent even elected by the electorate unlike the US and have no real role anymore.

The facts are its just another gravy train that keeps on giving to the suits. When is the last time the seanad done anything for us?

Bergkamp 10

harrythehat wrote: »

I'd say since it's election, the government has had bigger fiscal priorities.

???

What does that even mean? I'm sorry but coupled with your posts about Kennys high satisfaction rating leads me to believe you are a FG supporter of some sort.

In 10 months were they have done almost nothing helpful or different to the FF austerity measures, they have "bigger fiscal priorities"?

If it was put to referendum the seanad would be dumped and fast, pure and simple they dont want that. Why I dont know, more of the jobs for the boys mentality clearly.

The millions more wasted on this farce seanad, and they are closing A&Es around the country and about to slash more incomes, massive tax increases and ridiculous VAT increases.

Yet the will keep this waste of expenditure alive, for what reason I cannot fathom.

Bergkamp 10

Just found out apparently there are preliminary procedures to have a referendum sometime next year, date unknown. Why not a few weeks ago.

And apparently its irrelevent anyway, because the current senators will serve out their terms anyway. This country, really beggars belief....:rolleyes:

jank

Maybe you should educate yourself first. The Seanad is written into the constitution so there is no way in hell that the government can just abolish it a few weeks after the election. The government are in the process in having a constitutional convention, think its spring 2012 when its happening. Here they will discuss things about the constitution that that should be improved on and will probably put a few things up for referendum like the abolishment of the Seanad among other things. They are actually doing their job on this one. In 2015-2016 if they havent dont a thing by right you can critise them but give them a chance first for **** sake!

dsmythy

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

Just found out apparently there are preliminary procedures to have a referendum sometime next year, date unknown. Why not a few weeks ago.

And apparently its irrelevent anyway, because the current senators will serve out their terms anyway. This country, really beggars belief....:rolleyes:

Why would they bother going through the selection process if they're going to immediately scrap the thing. This was the plan all along, nothing has changed.

Einhard

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

Just found out apparently there are preliminary procedures to have a referendum sometime next year, date unknown. Why not a few weeks ago.

And apparently its irrelevent anyway, because the current senators will serve out their terms anyway. This country, really beggars belief....:rolleyes:

AFAIK, the current senators would have to be allowed to serve their terms. The Seanad is deeply entrenched in the Constitution. It's not just a matter of removing it with the stroke of a pen. Most of the articles in the Constitution refer to the Seanad in some way, and they have to be amended too. I understand your impatience, but these things are complicated. "Make haste slowly" as Augustus was fond of saying. I'd much rather have a it was done properly in a methodical manner, than rushed for the sake of short-term populism.

Sully

The senate will be sitting for at least its remaining term, as required in the constitution. The amendment to scrap it, will be coming before the next general election among with a number of others.

The government cant do anything about this, so there is no reason to rush through the referendum until the term is close to an end.

anymore

Sully wrote: »

The senate will be sitting for at least its remaining term, as required in the constitution. The amendment to scrap it, will be coming before the next general election among with a number of others.

The government cant do anything about this, so there is no reason to rush through the referendum until the term is close to an end.

In other words use it as a cheap publicity stunt to get votes. Why didnt Bertie Kenny and Gilmore wait until after legisltaion was introduced to appoint new judges ? So they could give out jobs for the boys at the old higher salaries. All a stunt and we are paying the bills. I dont see why a referndum couldnt allow for the immediate dissolution of the Seanad.

jank

anymore wrote: »

In other words use it as a cheap publicity stunt to get votes. Why didnt Bertie Kenny and Gilmore wait until after legisltaion was introduced to appoint new judges ? So they could give out jobs for the boys at the old higher salaries. All a stunt and we are paying the bills. I dont see why a referndum couldnt allow for the immediate dissolution of the Seanad.

Why? Rushed legislation = bad legislation as we have just seen.

anymore

jank wrote: »

Why? Rushed legislation = bad legislation as we have just seen.

Just how much time is necessary to abolish something ?
Of course of you have already given out the lucratice jobs for the boys at tax payers expense, you will want those people to get as many years of the taxpayers miney as possible wont you ?
If FG's reasons for abolishing the Seanad were and are vaild, then why wait ?

touts

A constitutional ammendment was passed by over 92% of voters in 1979 to extend the franchise for 6 of the seats from just NUI and TCD to all other third level colleges (DCU, UL, DIT, etc). 32 years later this still has not been implemented.

If 6 of the feckers could protect their seats for 32 years even when the 92% of the population in effect voted them out what chance do you think there is of reforming or getting rid of 60 of them. They are like cockroaches. We could nuke Dublin and once the dust settled the first sound heard by rescue teams would be Norris & Ó Murchú whinging about cuts to the arts council budget for displaying the works of emerging artist and musician Gobnet O'Nobody.

Manach

Given the recent government's track record on referenda (blaming others for a failure to pass) and that they seem to have difficultly grasping concepts such as separation of powers, I don't have much confidence in their proposals.

anymore

touts wrote: »

A constitutional ammendment was passed by over 92% of voters in 1979 to extend the franchise for 6 of the seats from just NUI and TCD to all other third level colleges (DCU, UL, DIT, etc). 32 years later this still has not been implemented.

If 6 of the feckers could protect their seats for 32 years even when the 92% of the population in effect voted them out what chance do you think there is of reforming or getting rid of 60 of them. They are like cockroaches. We could nuke Dublin and once the dust settled the first sound heard by rescue teams would be Norris & Ó Murchú whinging about cuts to the arts council budget for displaying the works of emerging artist and musician Gobnet O'Nobody.

Wonderful and very pertinent post !

Riskymove

anymore wrote: »

Just how much time is necessary to abolish something ?

the Seanad and its role is set out in detail in our Constitutuion and its abolishment will mean a lot of changes to that document which requires careful consideration.

I think time should be spent deciding how its current roles should be replaced (if at all) and what we would like to see in the future

anymore

Riskymove wrote: »

the Seanad and its role is set out in detail in our Constitutuion and its abolishment will mean a lot of changes to that document which requires careful consideration.

I think time should be spent deciding how its current roles should be replaced (if at all) and what we would like to see in the future

Well I have to assume that Enda kenny and FG had already given a good deal of consideration to the complexities of the matter - they hardly plucked this out of thin air ?
And besides, many of the complexities of the matter could be sorted out after a referendum had actaully been passed

imme

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

I thought this was talked about in government plans to abolish this waste of time. Now dont get me wrong I even voted for one of the senators who got in and many of them are able politicians, but that doesnt disguise the fact that its just another gravy train.

I have no idea how much it is costing ,

Wow OP you seem so well informed.
So, you think there are some good politicians but you think it should be gone.

The govt said we'd need to have a referendum before it could be abolished.

FreudianSlippers

Overheal wrote: »

if its anything like the US system: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/whyhouseandsenate.htm

hope that partially answers your question.

Unfortunately it isn't. I think the intent was that it would be like a cross between the US and UK system.

The Seanad should remain around, but not in its current form. I have a basic framework of how I think it should work, but not the time to post it now... maybe later if you're lucky :P

Riskymove

anymore wrote: »

And besides, many of the complexities of the matter could be sorted out after a referendum had actaully been passed

no, not really, you have to vote on the actual proposed changes to the text of the constitution

its not as simple as voting on 'Should the Seanad be abolished? Yes or No'

the current Seanad has been elected under the constituion that existed at the time and will serve out their term so there is no rush from Government point of view

Sully

anymore wrote: »

In other words use it as a cheap publicity stunt to get votes. Why didnt Bertie Kenny and Gilmore wait until after legisltaion was introduced to appoint new judges ? So they could give out jobs for the boys at the old higher salaries. All a stunt and we are paying the bills. I dont see why a referndum couldnt allow for the immediate dissolution of the Seanad.

It was hardly a stunt to get votes. Everyone knew there was going to be a Seanad election, there was talk about who was running for it during the General Election. There was huge discussion when Fine Gael announced their plans about how it would work etc. It has been reaffirmed after the election.

Afaik, in order to abolish the Seanad immediately, the last Government would have had to have had a referendum before the election and it of course would need to be one. However, lawfully, if we all said "Abolish" in the morning the change can not come into effect until the current term ends.

Aside from that, its not like we can scrap a part of our governmental system with the swipe of a pan and not planned for the future or its consequences.

Wider Road

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

I thought this was talked about in government plans to abolish this waste of time. Now dont get me wrong I even voted for one of the senators who got in and many of them are able politicians, but that doesnt disguise the fact that its just another gravy train.

I have no idea how much it is costing , but I will estimate it is wasting a number of millions of euros a year. The last time they overturned a bill was in the 1960s I believe.

We all know we are down the creek without a paddle but the seanad should be targeted, the jobridge scheme is encouraging slave labour and the higher up administration in the PS need wage cuts and fast.

Why isnt this basic stuff being done? If joe bloggs on the street can see this why isnt the government acting now.

The latest cock ups in the dept finance dont say alot for the future.

Shane Ross would have a fair idea on the cost. He was a Senator for 20, yes 20 years. Shane now wants the Seanad abolished, now that he is a TD!!!!!
He has lots of fans (step forward please).

ShooterSF

anymore wrote: »

Well I have to assume that Enda kenny and FG had already given a good deal of consideration to the complexities of the matter - they hardly plucked this out of thin air ?
And besides, many of the complexities of the matter could be sorted out after a referendum had actaully been passed

I'm all for it's abolition but you can't do it that way. the whole idea of a constitution is that it can only be reworded by referendum so the rewording has to be wrote up first to be put to the public.

bijapos

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

I thought this was talked about in government plans to abolish this waste of time.

Sully wrote: »

The government cant do anything about this, so there is no reason to rush through the referendum until the term is close to an end.

anymore wrote: »

And besides, many of the complexities of the matter could be sorted out after a referendum had actaully been passed

Enda Kenny said in a speech to 1300 FG members in October 2009 that FG would hold a referendum on abolishing the Seanad within 12 months of coming into power. This isn't going to happen, it was a rash promise at the time designed to grab the attention of the people and it worked.

He should have said it will be held within 3 years and give the senators 3 years from spring 2011 to reform it fully or introduce proposals for reform. Instead he went the simple populist route to garner the most attention possible. His own party colleagues were appaled at what he said at the speech regarding abolishment.

@Sully: While the issue should not be rushed there is no reason for FG to wait till the end of the term as they "might run out of time to have a referendum". A time limit of 12 months was originally put on it, this should be adhered to a near as possible. There is no reason why it can't be held by June 2012 if they are serious about it.

@anymore: The complexities will have to be sorted out in advance, not afterwards. Either way if the referendum is passed the Seanad will run its course for this term as per the constitution.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Seanad should remain around, but not in its current form. I have a basic framework of how I think it should work, but not the time to post it now... maybe later if you're lucky :P

Looking forward to reading that, I'm in two minds about keeping an upper house, if it could be reformed a lot and prove to be more active and more useful then I would be interested, however I feel this will not happen, it will be a simple yes or no, and a populist no will undoubtedly win, just look at the judges pay referendum.

Sully wrote: »

It was hardly a stunt to get votes.

It was, plain and simple a stunt, his own party colleagues had no idea he was going to say this and they were aghast when he said it at that speech.

Wider Road wrote: »

Shane Ross would have a fair idea on the cost. He was a Senator for 20, yes 20 years. Shane now wants the Seanad abolished, now that he is a TD!!!!!
He has lots of fans (step forward please).

30 years actually. He is one of the longest serving Senators ever. Interestingly enough two days after he was elected a TD he went on to Pat Kennys radio show and referred to the Seanad as "the most exclusive gentlemans club in the country" and gave it a general all round bollicking. I cant find any records of him ever critiscising the workings of the Seanad and I cant find any references to him ever trying push through the 1979 amendment.

mistermouse

Twas an electioneering piece of spin to fill a few paragraphs and get a few headlines, fill election debates.

Once the numpties got in they liked the idea of appointing people

swordofislam

I've written to my Fine Gael TDs and (lied) told them that I gave each of them my number 1 because of the respect I have for them personally but that the main reason for my voting FG was because Enda K said that he'd abolish the Seanad.
I promised that if they supported this and pushed for it in the Dail they could have my number 1 for the next 20 years and I would get everyone I know to vote for them.

In the interim why not just abolish all salary and expenses for senators.

saa

I'm not sure, I was at the academy of activism 2011 and there was a young woman who was just starting in there who seemed to only have experience in one case about pylons in cavan, couldn't speak with authority about anything and wouldn't ya know she's from a political family

Typical