Seanad Éireann - should it stay or should it go?

[StephenC]

The sooner it's gotten rid of the better. What has the Seanad done? Give me a tangible example of the Seanad's output over the last 10 years.
They have had years and years to reform themselves and didn't bother their hole. Now all of a sudden they are full of ideas by which the Seanad can become relevant to the people.
And the argument that other elements of the political system are also broken doesn't mean that we should keep the Seanad, just that we need to turn our attention to other things when we've rid of it.

[Maguire01]

Retain and reform. If it's done properly, it can be a good check on the Dail. Politicians arguing to do away with it have one of two agendas - populism or (and /or?) power-grab.

The reform does need to be significant, including the method of election. One important reason to keep it - which should be of interest to a lot of people on this board - is that it's a means to have Northern voices in the Oireachtas.

Also, the arguments for cost savings don't really stack up. Does anyone really believe we'd 'see' that €20m? It's loose change in the grand scheme of things. And good few senators are already employed, therefore they're paying higher rate of tax on their Seanad salary - in the region of 50% going straight back to the exchequer. If cost was a real driver, then why not cut salaries across the Oireachtas? Or reduce the number of TDs and Senators without full abolition.

Amusing that both Fianna Fail and Sinn Féin have done a u-turn on this one, both in opposite directions. Have these changed positions been made on the merit of the situation or to try and secure some small political advantage and differentiation?

[Maguire01]

So, only half of SF and Labour voters want the Seanad abolished... imagine how much lower that figure would be if those parties were campaigning on the other side of the argument...
http://www.thejournal.ie/labour-sinn-fein-seanad-referendum-1085524-Sep2013/

[magpie seanie]

The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be. Sadly it has become corrupted into a jobs for the boys political football. It should be nothing of the sort. It should be an independent body. I'd suggest that no member should be a member of a political party or have been for a set time. Obviously the ridiculous practice of "Taoiseach's nominees" must end. I would suggest also that a minimum number of cabinet ministers (as opposed to the current maximum of 2) must be selected from the Seanad. They're just a few things off the top of my head.

Abolishing the Seanad gives more power to the Dáil - that's the realpolitik here. Do we want that? I would say strongly - NO. It's a no brainer really.

[deiseach]

Plenty of countries get by with a unicameral parliament. Upper houses are a legacy of a time when information moved slowly so it was considered a good idea to have a second chamber to give a more considered response to the debate. They're old hat nowadays. Time to get rid.

[Canalman]

1937 Constitution is actually very good. Would be slow to change it willy nilly and certainly not on a whim to distract people from the economic mess.

Should stay and everyone should be able to  vote for it.

[muppet]

The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be. Sadly it has become corrupted into a jobs for the boys political football. It should be nothing of the sort. It should be an independent body. I'd suggest that no member should be a member of a political party or have been for a set time. Obviously the ridiculous practice of "Taoiseach's nominees" must end. I would suggest also that a minimum number of cabinet ministers (as opposed to the current maximum of 2) must be selected from the Seanad. They're just a few things off the top of my head.

Abolishing the Seanad gives more power to the Dáil - that's the realpolitik here. Do we want that? I would say strongly - NO. It's a no brainer really.

I completely agree with your logic and assessment of the current system. But I think that voting NO sends the message - don't change anything all is grand.

[StephenC]

If the Seanad is retained, how many people believe that in 10 years time it will be significantly different than it is now?

[magpie seanie]

The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be. Sadly it has become corrupted into a jobs for the boys political football. It should be nothing of the sort. It should be an independent body. I'd suggest that no member should be a member of a political party or have been for a set time. Obviously the ridiculous practice of "Taoiseach's nominees" must end. I would suggest also that a minimum number of cabinet ministers (as opposed to the current maximum of 2) must be selected from the Seanad. They're just a few things off the top of my head.

Abolishing the Seanad gives more power to the Dáil - that's the realpolitik here. Do we want that? I would say strongly - NO. It's a no brainer really.

I completely agree with your logic and assessment of the current system. But I think that voting NO sends the message - don't change anything all is grand.

Well if it does then that's a misinterpretation. Either way it's better than voting yes to yet another flawed proposal to amend our excellent constitution. Yes would be a complete disaster. Anything that gives the Dáil more power has to be fought. I think it should have less power.

In constitutional referenda the default position should be No until you are convinced otherwise by the propsers of change. I'm voting NO on the other one too, nothing so far has convinced me this will be more efficient than the current (flawed) system and I fear it could easily make it worse.

[magpie seanie]

If the Seanad is retained, how many people believe that in 10 years time it will be significantly different than it is now?

I'd obviously have doubts but it could and definitely should happen. If the proposal is beaten and I'm thinking it will be, Kenny will have to come up with some sort of spin about how people really want the same as him - the Seanad to change.....blahdee blah. If the pressure is kept up it can be achieved but the very fact that it's "all or nothing" is typical of the politics that got the country into the shit we are in. Why have we not learned from our mistakes? Have a discussion about possibilities rather than going for a populist (he thought) quick fix.

[Maguire01]

Plenty of countries get by with a unicameral parliament. Upper houses are a legacy of a time when information moved slowly so it was considered a good idea to have a second chamber to give a more considered response to the debate. They're old hat nowadays. Time to get rid.

Hmmm... surely now that information moves faster it's even more important to give a more considered response to the debate? Although i'm not convinced the speed of information was ever a significant factor.

[Maguire01]

And there's no sound basis for the €20m 'savings'.
http://www.thejournal.ie/seanad-abolition-costs-estimate-1085906-Sep2013/

[muppet]

And there's no sound basis for the €20m 'savings'.
http://www.thejournal.ie/seanad-abolition-costs-estimate-1085906-Sep2013/

It is hardly without cost though.

And what value does it add, other than allowing Taoishigh appoint lackeys and failed TDs to nice pensions?

[deiseach]

Plenty of countries get by with a unicameral parliament. Upper houses are a legacy of a time when information moved slowly so it was considered a good idea to have a second chamber to give a more considered response to the debate. They're old hat nowadays. Time to get rid.

Hmmm... surely now that information moves faster it's even more important to give a more considered response to the debate? Although i'm not convinced the speed of information was ever a significant factor.

The bicameral model we use comes from the US system. Senators there have six year terms and until 1913 were not even subject to a popular vote (they were nominated by state legislatures). The idea was that there should be a second chamber to give a more considered view, not subject to the latest whim of the proles. We are talking about a time before telegrams, let alone radio. It never worked on its merits even in its original incarnation, yet new states seem to adopt the model without a second thought. I've always wanted to get rid of it and look forward to the chance of doing it.

[Nally Stand]

The Seanad must be retained and reformed to be what it was initially intended to be

As has been pointed out a number of times recently, there have been 12 previous reports going back 40 odd years, all proposing reforms to the Seanad and each have been ignored by the government of the day. Why would another be any different? It is outdated, it's undemocratic and should go. My only reservation is the negative impact it would have on six county representation in Dublin. A minimum of bringing in speaking rights in the Dáil for six county MLAs/MPs and I'd be a lot more enthusiastic.