Seanad abolition - does any one other than McDowell and the Senators really care?

Triangla

TheRosseforp wrote: »

This referendum exemplifies the ignorance of Irish society in relation to issues of governance. I have not heard of one legitimate, substantiated claim to abolishing the Seanad. Unfortunately, the majority of voters rely on the media to obtain information about the issues at heart.

There is nothing wrong with not having a Seanad, especially a country this size. Having one house is not something that will be unique to Ireland if the abolition occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism

Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons I can think of why I want it abolished - Ivor Callely and Fidelma Healy Eames.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Callely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelma_Healy_Eames

It has done nothing of note for this country and despite numerous calls for reform, reform has never happened. In my opinion, it never will happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_%C3%89ireann

trishasaffron

I'd like to be voting on reform of the Seanad - unfortunately we're not being asked that question.

Its clear to me that we'll never get reform while the Seanad exists but there is perhaps a small chance of getting a new kind of 2nd chamber if we abolish the current sleazy undemocratic chamber.


Vote yes.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah. A conspiracy theory.

Carry on, so.

Your condescension is out of place with the general quality of your posts here.

Do you really believe that hiding, bending, or misrepresenting the truth to the people of Ireland has had no place in Irish domestic and European politics over the last two years? The last five to ten years? Have government and private or external powers never colluded in their own self interest, contrary to the betterment of our society? There is actual evidence, and plenty of it, via scores of tribunals and reputable media outlets to prove that we live in a political culture of corruption and conspiracy which thrives on Irish society's deference, and yet you condescend to me and attempt to weaken the validity of my points by throwing such an emotive term as "conspiracy theory" into a genuine debate?

I would have expected better from you.

Directly from Wikipedia:

"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more people, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through deliberate collusion, an event or phenomenon of great social, political, or economic impact"

Remind you of anything that happened around these parts lately?? :mad:

TheRosseforp

Triangla wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with not having a Seanad, especially a country this size. Having one house is not something that will be unique to Ireland if the abolition occurs.

Indeed, I have stated as much. However, having one house with as little local and regional power as we do in Ireland is something that will be unique to us. Not even on a European scale, but globally.

Triangla wrote: »

Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons I can think of why I want it abolished - Ivor Callely and Fidelma Healy Eames.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Callely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelma_Healy_Eames

Again, I have acknowledged the incompetence of certain representatives and that is something which needs to be addressed. Removing the whole institution is not the correct move for incompetent representatives however, you wouldn't promote the abolition/closing down of a company because of poor staff.

Triangla wrote: »

It has done nothing of note for this country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_%C3%89ireann

This is simply incorrect. Over 500 amendments to 14 bills pertaining to the constitution is something of note. It may not be printed on the front page of the tabloids, but it most definitely is noteworthy.

Triangla

TheRosseforp wrote: »

Indeed, I have stated as much. However, having one house with as little ....

"I have stated as much. However, having one house with as little local and regional power as we do in Ireland is something that will be unique to us. Not even on a European scale, but globally."

- Not sure what you mean by that, I'm unsure as to what actual impact that has on Irish life.


"This is simply incorrect. Over 500 amendments to 14 bills pertaining to the constitution is something of note. It may not be printed on the front page of the tabloids, but it most definitely is noteworthy"

I listened to that fact being debated on Newstalk. Essentially it seems that they are basically proof reading bills because the Dail did not have them proofed first. The bill is then sent back to the Dail.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/guide.htm

This is a pretty expensive method of proofreading.

Have a read through them, they look like the changes you would make after a colleague asked you to peer review their work before they send it to a client.


http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=90&m=z

Check out this list of amendments on Senator Kathleen Zappone's website:

http://senatorkatherinezappone.ie/index.php/entry/list-of-amendments-made-by-the-seanad/statement/

Take a look at the first one, Amendment to a Biological Weapons Bill. That sounds like pretty serious stuff right?

Now look at the amendments made:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/amendments/B201043.pdf

The Child Care Bill 2009 again there are amendents that to me look like someone just did not get the bill proofed properly in the first place.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/6109/b61d09s-sa.pdf


"Again, I have acknowledged the incompetence of certain representatives and that is something which needs to be addressed. Removing the whole institution is not the correct move for incompetent representatives however, you wouldn't promote the abolition/closing down of a company because of poor staff. "

As for the point of closing down a company because of poor staff, companies close every day of the week because of poor staff . The poor staff that ensure the company is never profitable. The Seanad take many many times more than it contributes to Irish society.

In a company context the Seanad is an expensive, superfluous layer of middle management. The kind of layer known as excess fat. They sit around and talk and are very very well paid for it.


http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=90&m=z

http://www.thejournal.ie/cost-of-abolishing-seanad-761429-Jan2013/

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Your condescension is out of place with the general quality of your posts here.

If you can adduce any actual evidence that abolition of the Seanad is a "prize" coveted by "Europe", feel free. Until then, it's a conspiracy theory.

Triangla

Triangla wrote: »

In a company context the Seanad is an expensive, superfluous layer of middle management. The kind of layer known as excess fat. They sit around and talk and are very very well paid for it.


http://www.thejournal.ie/cost-of-abolishing-seanad-761429-Jan2013/

Meant to include this link also:

http://www.thejournal.ie/irelands-best-kept-secret-12-senators-receiving-e23k-annual-payment-326699-Jan2012/

TheRosseforp

TheRosseforp wrote: »

This referendum exemplifies the ignorance of Irish society in relation to issues of governance.

...However, having one house with as little local and regional power as we do in Ireland is something that will be unique to us. Not even on a European scale, but globally."

Triangla wrote: »

- Not sure what you mean by that, I'm unsure as to what actual impact that has on Irish life.

Therein lies my point. People are voting on this topic and are simply unaware of the real concept of abolition. You are supplying me with information of incompetence within the Seanad, which I have acknowledged needs to be addressed. Yet, you do not understand the importance of local and regional power to Irish life. This is the kind of thing that worries me, and proves my point that people are lacking an in depth understanding of the impact of this referendum. (Just in case it seems passive aggressive here, when I say ignorance I mean not knowing or unaware. It has nothing to do with ones intellect or intelligence in general.)

Local and Regional power, in collaboration with national policies, are directly linked to successful, sustainable development of territories in an environmental, economic and social spectrum. This isn't my opinion, it is proven. There are a whole host of other aspects such as competitive democracies but we don't need to delve that far into there topic when so many can't grasp the basics.

Ireland has very little power in a local sense, the Seanad is the only realistic platform to present local and regional issues to the fore of Irish politics. There is no other avenue to do this, none.

I have acknowledged that the Seanad does have its flaws, be it incompetence of its members, the elected body or its power. However,
on a legislative scale it has fulfilled its role. The main gripe I have with the institution is its lack of influence on an operational level, where important issues can simply be discarded by the Dáil.

Triangla wrote: »

Have a read through them, they look like the changes you would make after a colleague asked you to peer review their work before they send it to a client.

Yes, the house is fulfilling one of its roles by doing this. I'm confused as to how you think this should be used to criticise the Seanad. Should more local and regional institutions be given more power to deal with the implementation of policies I could support the lack of necessity for a second house. In our circumstance however, we are nowhere near obtaining that ideal.

The reality is that we are nowhere near a process of decentralising power, as I mentioned in my initial post the relevant government institutions are actively seeking to increase the size of our regions judging by certain reports. It makes no sense, the government is supplying illogical, unsubstantial reports which are highlighting how far behind Ireland is from modern thinking.

We will be no further to reforming the Irish political spectrum regardless of whether this is passed or not. However, in line with contemporary studies and policies which acknowledge the importance of local and regional power it makes absolutely no sense to remove our only, quite limited avenue of expressing such issues. None whatsoever. A yes vote compromises our democracy, be under no illusions otherwise.

In truth, Irish policies, governance and development are drastically behind those of our European, and democratic, counterparts. It is a frightening prospect that every other democratic country on a global scale can acknowledge the importance of decentralising power, yet populist drip fed media soundbites can influence a wide range of voters in Ireland to thinking that removing an aspect of public representation, in lieu of our circumstance, is advantageous.

Triangla

TheRosseforp wrote: »

Ireland has very little power in a local sense, the Seanad is the only realistic platform to present local and regional issues to the fore of Irish politics. There is no other avenue to do this, none.

Seanad members are not elected by popular vote so there is no direct representation there at any level.

Triangla

TheRosseforp wrote: »

Yes, the house is fulfilling one of its roles by doing this. I'm confused as to how you think this should be used to criticise the Seanad.

I'm criticising this on a pure value for money basis. The Seanad are correcting the content, not addding to it. The Dail do not even need to accept the changes.

I can walk in to my local TD's office and ask them to add an amendement.

Amendments made by Seanad to Bill initiated in Dáil

• Amendments made by the Seanad are considered in Committee of whole Dáil.
• Amendments may be accepted, rejected or amended or consequential amendments made.
• The Committee's decisions can be reviewed by Dáil on report, and further amendments may be made.
• The Dáil may agree Seanad amendments and/or
• The Dáil may disagree with Seanad amendments and request that the Seanad does not insist on them, and/or
• The Dáil may amend Seanad amendments, and/or
• If the Dáil has made further amendments, the Seanad is asked to agree them

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/guide.htm

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you can adduce any actual evidence that abolition of the Seanad is a "prize" coveted by "Europe", feel free. Until then, it's a conspiracy theory.

I could challenge you to produce similar irrefutable evidence of a claim that abolition would save 20 million per year. When you couldn't produce it would that then make your argument for abolition a conspiracy theory also?

This campaign has been marked by a lack of concrete evidence, by spin, and by personality politics on both sides, as opposed to hard facts. Had we more hard evidence to go on, or any kind of reform roadmap other than vague promises, it might be a relatively straight forward poll, but in lieu of that, we are being asked to vote on matters of trust, and the balance of power.

In my choice of vote today, i am looking at the balance of power and how it will shift one way or the other or remain unchanged. I'll be voting no to watering down democracy, because I don't see the vague promise of a possible saving of the equivalent of at most €3 per head of population back to the exchequer (after tax) being enough to balance that out.

It's not a question of money, and its foolish to believe that it is. Nobody wants a wasteful overbloated seanad, but this vote Is not about that, it's a question of power, pure and simple.

Triangla

Deleted User wrote: »

In my choice of vote today, i am looking at the balance of power and how it will shift one way or the other or remain unchanged. I'll be voting no to watering down democracy, because I don't see the vague promise of a possible saving of the equivalent of at most €3 per head of population back to the exchequer (after tax) being enough to balance that out.

The Seanad is not elected by a popular vote - it is in no way democratic. Of the 60 Seanad members, the Taoiseach can appoint 11.

"The powers of Seanad Éireann are modelled loosely on those of the British House of Lords. It was intended to play an advisory and revising role rather than to be the equal of the popularly elected Dáil. While notionally every Act of the Oireachtas must receive its assent, it can only delay rather than veto decisions of the Dáil. In practice, however, the Seanad has an in-built government majority due to the Taoiseach's nominees."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_%C3%89ireann

As for the cost, good article in The Journal back in January before all the spin kicked in. It worked it out at over €8 million per annum excluding pension aspect.

http://www.thejournal.ie/cost-of-abolishing-seanad-761429-Jan2013/

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

I could challenge you to produce similar irrefutable evidence of a claim that abolition would save 20 million per year. When you couldn't produce it would that then make your argument for abolition a conspiracy theory also?

That claim has been advanced, evidence for and against it has been produced and evaluated, and it turns out to be pretty much untrue. That doesn't make it a conspiracy theory; it makes it false.

The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is, by and large, that it's unprovable. It relies on insinuations that all is not as it seems; that surely there must be more to this than meets the eye...

Well, maybe there is. Maybe "Europe" (who?) is demanding Seanad abolition as a prize (why?) - but until you actually explain who in Europe wants this, and exactly what they'll gain by it, there isn't even anything to discuss.

TheRosseforp

Triangla wrote: »

Seanad members are not elected by popular vote so there is no direct representation there at any level.

Again, the Seanad is the only realistic platform to present local and regional issues to the political fore. Just because there is no democratic election does not mean that local and regional issues are not addressed.

Triangla wrote: »

I'm criticising this on a pure value for money basis.

I have little respect for anybody who even mentions saving money as a pro for abolition, it resembles the ignorant, uninformed and oblivious.

Money should have no argument in constitutional matters. €20 million to you or me is a significant sum of money. Apply €20 million to ~€4.5 billion and it is insignificant to say the least. For arguments sake, it is akin to an 8 cent saving on a weekly net income of €400 for your average Irish householder.

Anybody who is enticed by saving or a lower number of representatives simply is lacking an understanding of the significance of this referendum. The majority of people are clueless of such issues because it requires in depth reading of academic literature at the least to understand the true impacts of such a decision in respect of Irish democracy and the avenue it is pursuing. Unfortunately, the media fed droplets have resulted in many thinking that a 20 million saving and less politicians is an enticing proposition. I've said my piece but it is a sad indictment of Irish voters that this detestable referendum has obtained far more support than it was worthy of, and could potentially succeed.

Triangla

TheRosseforp wrote: »

Again, the Seanad is the only realistic platform to present local and regional issues to the political fore. Just because there is no democratic election does not mean that local and regional issues are not addressed.


I have little respect for anybody who even mentions saving money as a pro for abolition, it resembles the ignorant, uninformed and oblivious.

Money should have no argument in constitutional matters. €20 million to you or me is a significant sum of money. Apply €20 million to ~€4.5 billion and it is insignificant to say the least. For arguments sake, it is akin to an 8 cent saving on a weekly net income of €400 for your average Irish householder.

Anybody who is enticed by saving or a lower number of representatives simply is lacking an understanding of the significance of this referendum. The majority of people are clueless of such issues because it requires in depth reading of academic literature at the least to understand the true impacts of such a decision in respect of Irish democracy and the avenue it is pursuing. Unfortunately, the media fed droplets have resulted in many thinking that a 20 million saving and less politicians is an enticing proposition. I've said my piece but it is a sad indictment of Irish voters that this detestable referendum has obtained far more support than it was worthy of, and could potentially succeed.

"The powers of Seanad Éireann are modelled loosely on those of the British House of Lords. It was intended to play an advisory and revising role rather than to be the equal of the popularly elected Dáil. While notionally every Act of the Oireachtas must receive its assent, it can only delay rather than veto decisions of the Dáil. In practice, however, the Seanad has an in-built government majority due to the Taoiseach's nominees."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_%C3%89ireann

"Money should have no argument in constitutional matters."

The Seanad is a rubber stamping entity.

Why not just buy a rubber stamp?

It would have the same net effect from a constitutional point of view.

Banjoxed

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Been getting people on the doors who say they will 'Vote No' as they do not want a Seanad any longer, so it will balance itself out.

Dumb people do dumb things. If some people need a diagram to tell their arse from their elbow why should that impinge on the rest of us?

petronius

To the Threads Question - does anyone other than McDowell and the Senators really care?
Friday the verdict was 52% of the voters do !

Triangla

petronius wrote: »

To the Threads Question - does anyone other than McDowell and hte Senators really care?
Friday the verdict was 52% of the voters do !

Nearly 40% of the electorate cared enough to vote I think would be more apt.

100% of the people who did vote cared enough to vote.

:-)