Seanad Éireann - should it stay or should it go?

[AZOffaly]

Government viewpoint: electorate didn't understand the vote.
FF/Senators viewpoint : yayyy the electorate love us again!
Electorate viewpoint : no, we hate ye and understand the vote. We just want reform, not a single house.

[Maguire01]

Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

But it was Gerry's argument, before Pearse won the internal debate:

"That is not real reform; it is power grabbing. It may be a very democratic coup but it is a coup none the less. There is more power for government, less accountability and democracy and fewer checks and balances against political abuse and patronage."

And i'd imagine if the polls had been showing in favour of retention early on, SF's position would have been different on this. It was pure opportunism (just as it was with FF in the opposite position). With the northern element especially, SF's position made absolutely no sense - and they were well out of line with their voters.

Yes, the Seanad has limited power as it stands, but abolishing it would have removed any possibility for there to ever be an effective challenge to the Executive. With the whip system in the Dail, the opposition is totally powerless. I can't see any major shift coming there, regardless of who is in power.

Ah get over yourself. I didn't mention SF in my post. I have already stated that I had reservations about its abolition as it would see less six county representation participation in Dublin.
I only stated my opinion that it is hardly a power grab when the seanad has next to no power anyway, and doesn't use the small bit of power it does have. So if the only motivation was grabbing power, it would be a very bothersome and risky campaign for very minimal reward.

I only mentioned SF as you're officially the Board's biggest Shinner and it's fairly uncommon (unknown?) for you to consider Gerry's words "pure nonsense".

My opinion is that regardless of how toothless the Seanad is now, there's more scope to create challenge in it than in the Dail, and a successful 'yes' vote would have removed any potential for that.

[Nally Stand]

Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

But it was Gerry's argument, before Pearse won the internal debate:

"That is not real reform; it is power grabbing. It may be a very democratic coup but it is a coup none the less. There is more power for government, less accountability and democracy and fewer checks and balances against political abuse and patronage."

And i'd imagine if the polls had been showing in favour of retention early on, SF's position would have been different on this. It was pure opportunism (just as it was with FF in the opposite position). With the northern element especially, SF's position made absolutely no sense - and they were well out of line with their voters.

Yes, the Seanad has limited power as it stands, but abolishing it would have removed any possibility for there to ever be an effective challenge to the Executive. With the whip system in the Dail, the opposition is totally powerless. I can't see any major shift coming there, regardless of who is in power.

Ah get over yourself. I didn't mention SF in my post. I have already stated that I had reservations about its abolition as it would see less six county representation participation in Dublin.
I only stated my opinion that it is hardly a power grab when the seanad has next to no power anyway, and doesn't use the small bit of power it does have. So if the only motivation was grabbing power, it would be a very bothersome and risky campaign for very minimal reward.

I only mentioned SF as you're officially the Board's biggest Shinner and it's fairly uncommon (unknown?) for you to consider Gerry's words "pure nonsense".

My opinion is that regardless of how toothless the Seanad is now, there's more scope to create challenge in it than in the Dail, and a successful 'yes' vote would have removed any potential for that.

Again, my post never mentioned SF. It had nothing to do with SF. I don't care if Gerry Adams or anybody else says it is a powergrab. It is fanciful to describe it as such.

[Syferus]

Muppet beat me to it on this but all the talk of it being a powergrab is pure nonsense. The senate has next to no power and the power it does have, it doesn't use. A red herring argument.

But it was Gerry's argument, before Pearse won the internal debate:

"That is not real reform; it is power grabbing. It may be a very democratic coup but it is a coup none the less. There is more power for government, less accountability and democracy and fewer checks and balances against political abuse and patronage."

And i'd imagine if the polls had been showing in favour of retention early on, SF's position would have been different on this. It was pure opportunism (just as it was with FF in the opposite position). With the northern element especially, SF's position made absolutely no sense - and they were well out of line with their voters.

Yes, the Seanad has limited power as it stands, but abolishing it would have removed any possibility for there to ever be an effective challenge to the Executive. With the whip system in the Dail, the opposition is totally powerless. I can't see any major shift coming there, regardless of who is in power.

Ah get over yourself. I didn't mention SF in my post. I have already stated that I had reservations about its abolition as it would see less six county representation participation in Dublin.
I only stated my opinion that it is hardly a power grab when the seanad has next to no power anyway, and doesn't use the small bit of power it does have. So if the only motivation was grabbing power, it would be a very bothersome and risky campaign for very minimal reward.

I only mentioned SF as you're officially the Board's biggest Shinner and it's fairly uncommon (unknown?) for you to consider Gerry's words "pure nonsense".

My opinion is that regardless of how toothless the Seanad is now, there's more scope to create challenge in it than in the Dail, and a successful 'yes' vote would have removed any potential for that.

Again, my post never mentioned SF. It had nothing to do with SF. I don't care if Gerry Adams or anybody else says it is a powergrab. It is fanciful to describe it as such.

Go on Nally, you have to have one of those fridge magnets somewhere in the house.

[Nally Stand]

Ah now your just piggybacking on maguire. That's just lazy. Seriously though, some of you lads are very obsessed with SF.

[anglocelt39]

So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?
[/quote

My reason for voting for its abolition was when I tried to think of one occasion in my life when the Seanad prevented the Dail from grabbing power and riding  roughshod over the people, couldn't think of any, that's not saying it hasn't happened mind.

Heard the stuff that we were being suckered into voting for much more than the abolition of the Seanad and the wording of the ballot paper would make you wonder all right. Missus had reviewed the Referendum Commission documents and saw no reference to anything of major note so I suppose you have to have some faith in that group.

[Eamonnca1]

Most of the arguments I'm hearing from the abolition lobby are the same arguments for retain-and-reform.

[muppet]

So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

This despite the same man proposing 'terminating the Seanad' in 1987:

[muppet]

McDowell of course has form. He brilliantly prevented Fianna Fáil from an overall majority (2002 I think?) with a late election stunt basically saying that FF couldn't be trusted. He was right, and reaped the electoral rewards, but of course when the PDs turned out to be even worse he was massacred at the polls.

This success though is interesting. I suspect he will want to launch a new party.

[muppet]

Most of the arguments I'm hearing from the abolition lobby are the same arguments for retain-and-reform.

Retain and reform wasn't on the ballot.

Clever stunt from the No campaign.

Their hubris in the media and on the net today shows how serious they were about reform. Many of them today are calling for FG/Labour/SF senators to resign as they claim campaigning for the closing of the Seanad is incompatible with sitting in it. That statement would be true, if you had no intention of considering reforming the Seanad.

[Hardy]

So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

Fair enough, but why did you vote for it, then and why are you giving out to the rest of us for feeling happy that we didn't fall for it?

[muppet]

So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

Fair enough, but why did you vote for it, then and why are you giving out to the rest of us for feeling happy that we didn't fall for it?

We have a Dáil.

We have a Supreme Court.

We have a President.

I believe we don't need a Seanad. We definitely don't need a token house where the Taoiseach gets to put in 9 of his buddies (Eoghan Harris!) into 15% of the seats.

One simple question. The biggest c*ck up ever made by the Dáil was the Bank Guarantee. What did the Seanad do for us then?

[Hardy]

So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

Fair enough, but why did you vote for it, then and why are you giving out to the rest of us for feeling happy that we didn't fall for it?

We have a Dáil.

We have a Supreme Court.

We have a President.

I believe we don't need a Seanad. We definitely don't need a token house where the Taoiseach gets to put in 9 of his buddies (Eoghan Harris!) into 15% of the seats.

One simple question. The biggest c*ck up ever made by the Dáil was the Bank Guarantee. What did the Seanad do for us then?

With respect, muppet, that's not a reasonable question to put to someone who has repeatedly made it clear, in common with practically everybody on the No side, that we accept that the Seanad as currently constructed is undemocratic, useless and corrupt. That's not the debate we're having.

It's a simple point. Practically all who voted No believe we need a second house to scrutinise and keep a check on the Healy-Raes, Mary-Lous, Pink Wallies and Chairman Mayos of the Dáil. We also (ad nauseam) made the point that a No vote was not a vote to accept the continuation of the current undemocratic, corrupt, useless upper house. But we could see that if we abolished the current Seanad, that was the end of the road. That was the sum total of upper house reform on offer, as specifically stated in the blackmail manifesto - vote for this reform, 'cos if you don't, there'll be no other reform.

We believed if we rejected this blackmail, it wouldn't be politically possible actually to implement it. We appear to have been right - already FG and labour are making noises about taking account of the manifest desire of the electorate for a reformed Seanad. Of course the war is not won. It's not even started and it will still be at best very difficult to get any reform, never mind the extent of reform that's needed. But "very difficult" is better than impossible, which is what was on offer if the thing didn't exist to be reformed.

I wouldn't dismiss the significance of yesterday's result in providing momentum towards more effective reform than might have been expected. For one thing, whatever government brings forward any future reform proposal, if it requires a referendum, may be careful not to offer something that will deliver another humiliating result. They'll have to offer something a now reform-conscious electorate will accept. Of course they will prefer to offer nothing and hope it all goes away, but that's politically more difficult now than it was before we wise people voted the right way. 

[muppet]

So what was the reason for the attempted abolition of the Seanad?

The reason for the abolishing was Enda's foray into populism.

Give them what they want, he thought. That will make them happy, he thought.

But he never figured on the return of the Dark Knight. Even though I hated him when he lead the PDs you got to hand it to him. He pulled a stunt and turned all of the 'don't knows' and all of the anti-politics votes and hilariously harnessed them into a save the Seanad vote.

Fair enough, but why did you vote for it, then and why are you giving out to the rest of us for feeling happy that we didn't fall for it?

We have a Dáil.

We have a Supreme Court.

We have a President.

I believe we don't need a Seanad. We definitely don't need a token house where the Taoiseach gets to put in 9 of his buddies (Eoghan Harris!) into 15% of the seats.

One simple question. The biggest c*ck up ever made by the Dáil was the Bank Guarantee. What did the Seanad do for us then?

With respect, muppet, that's not a reasonable question to put to someone who has repeatedly made it clear, in common with practically everybody on the No side, that we accept that the Seanad as currently constructed is undemocratic, useless and corrupt. That's not the debate we're having.

It's a simple point. Practically all who voted No believe we need a second house to scrutinise and keep a check on the Healy-Raes, Mary-Lous, Pink Wallies and Chairman Mayos of the Dáil. We also (ad nauseam) made the point that a No vote was not a vote to accept the continuation of the current undemocratic, corrupt, useless upper house. But we could see that if we abolished the current Seanad, that was the end of the road. That was the sum total of upper house reform on offer, as specifically stated in the blackmail manifesto - vote for this reform, 'cos if you don't, there'll be no other reform.

We believed if we rejected this blackmail, it wouldn't be politically possible actually to implement it. We appear to have been right - already FG and labour are making noises about taking account of the manifest desire of the electorate for a reformed Seanad. Of course the war is not won. It's not even started and it will still be at best very difficult to get any reform, never mind the extent of reform that's needed. But "very difficult" is better than impossible, which is what was on offer if the thing didn't exist to be reformed.

I wouldn't dismiss the significance of yesterday's result in providing momentum towards more effective reform than might have been expected. For one thing, whatever government brings forward any future reform proposal, if it requires a referendum, may be careful not to offer something that will deliver another humiliating result. They'll have to offer something a now reform-conscious electorate will accept. Of course they will prefer to offer nothing and hope it all goes away, but that's politically more difficult now than it was before we wise people voted the right way. 

Hardy, do you seriously believe there will be another Seanad referendum?

The Bank Crisis hasn't given us a single piece of reform, despite everything that happened.

The recent hand wringing regarding reform was a brilliant piece of spin to save the Seanad. Nothing more. It worked, I accept that. Game over on this one.

Next........

[Hardy]

I don't know. My point, at the risk of boring you with repetition, is that it's more likely than it would be if there were no Seanad and that at least Seanad reform is now in the political arena. It wasn't before. For anyone who believes an effective upper house to scrutinise the doings of the Dáil is a good idea if properly implemented, we're in a better place now than we were before this referendum was called.