Seanad Éireann - should it stay or should it go?

[Maguire01]

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 It is outdated, it's undemocratic and should go.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.

Hmmm... 'speaking rights' (probably in front of an empty chamber) vs actual power to legislate in the Oireachtas - I know which i'd rather.

And no one is arguing that it's fit for purpose as it exists, but the 'outdated' and 'undemocratic' problems are easily solved if there's a will.

As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

[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 It is outdated, it's undemocratic and should go.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.

Hmmm... 'speaking rights' (probably in front of an empty chamber) vs actual power to legislate in the Oireachtas - I know which i'd rather.

And no one is arguing that it's fit for purpose as it exists, but the 'outdated' and 'undemocratic' problems are easily solved if there's a will.

As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

Easily solved if there is a will?? There is no such will so how else can it be easily solved? The Seanad has backed the government legislation every time it was asked for the last 2 and a half years without a single exception. It's 49 years since it last used is power to delay legislation. Beating this in mind, scraping a toothless seanad couldn't be much of a "powergrab".

[StephenC]

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.

Hmmm... 'speaking rights' (probably in front of an empty chamber) vs actual power to legislate in the Oireachtas - I know which i'd rather.

And no one is arguing that it's fit for purpose as it exists, but the 'outdated' and 'undemocratic' problems are easily solved if there's a will.

As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

If they were so easily solved why has no one bothered their hole doing it? The senators have had ample time create the Seanad that you are talking about. They haven't and they won't. A No vote is a vote to keep the Seanad exactly as it is for generations to come. A leg up and a soft landing for politicians, a soapbox for people to practice their oratory and another chunk of waste in our public service.

[deiseach]

As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

In what way is the Seanad a bulwark against the power of the Dáil? Forget about their inaction in the recent crisis, as many people have pointed out that would be an argument to abolish democracy entirely. Can anyone think of a single situation where an action was taken by the Oireachtas that wouldn't have been taken if it were not for the Seanad? Heck, it can be a bad decision, at least it would show the Seanad had some power in the first place.

[magpie seanie]

Can ye not see that the Seanad is gerrymandered by Taoiseach's nominees? That's why it never goes against the Government. No-one is arguing for it to be kept as it is.

You could make a similar argument about getting rid of the Dáil. After all the decisions are all made by the Troika and/or Brussels now.

[Franko]

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.

Hmmm... 'speaking rights' (probably in front of an empty chamber) vs actual power to legislate in the Oireachtas - I know which i'd rather.

And no one is arguing that it's fit for purpose as it exists, but the 'outdated' and 'undemocratic' problems are easily solved if there's a will.

As i've already stated, the motivation for this is populist opportunism and/or power grab. The government has enough of a strangle-hold on power without giving it more.

This is the key phrase here.  And you and everyone else knows that this will doesn't exist.

[Rossfan]

I'll be voting to get rid of this undemocratic bastion of privilege.

[deiseach]

Can ye not see that the Seanad is gerrymandered by Taoiseach's nominees? That's why it never goes against the Government. No-one is arguing for it to be kept as it is.

The Taoiseach's nominees are a feature, not a bug. Why should a series of rotten boroughs like the Seanad - anyone with degrees from UCD and Trinity gets two votes! - interfere with the will of the Dáil?

You could make a similar argument about getting rid of the Dáil. After all the decisions are all made by the Troika and/or Brussels now.

We have two chambers, one which makes the decisions (even if it was to agree to the bailout) and one which doesn't. Why do we need two chambers to make decisions?

[tyronefan]

Can ye not see that the Seanad is gerrymandered by Taoiseach's nominees? That's why it never goes against the Government. No-one is arguing for it to be kept as it is.

You could make a similar argument about getting rid of the Dáil. After all the decisions are all made by the Troika and/or Brussels now.

Yeah and should we ever get the chance, I would vote to abolish it too

[magpie seanie]

Can ye not see that the Seanad is gerrymandered by Taoiseach's nominees? That's why it never goes against the Government. No-one is arguing for it to be kept as it is.

The Taoiseach's nominees are a feature, not a bug. Why should a series of rotten boroughs like the Seanad - anyone with degrees from UCD and Trinity gets two votes! - interfere with the will of the Dáil?

You could make a similar argument about getting rid of the Dáil. After all the decisions are all made by the Troika and/or Brussels now.

We have two chambers, one which makes the decisions (even if it was to agree to the bailout) and one which doesn't. Why do we need two chambers to make decisions?

We need one made up of politicians and one completely devoid of politicians in my view. If I had to make do with one I know which one I'd pick to get rid of.

[deiseach]

We need one made up of politicians and one completely devoid of politicians in my view. If I had to make do with one I know which one I'd pick to get rid of.

That's all very nice, but I'm reminded of Tony Benn's five questions for those in power: what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you? How exactly would you envisage getting shot of members of a legislature devoid of politicians?

[magpie seanie]

Set terms of office. In fact these should also be in place (max number of years) for Dáil members.

Where there's a will there's a way but when politicians control things this would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I believe having people in a legislature who aren't "part of the club" would be a really good thing.

If they want to save money reduce the number of TD's - there's really no reason for how many we have.

[deiseach]

Set terms of office. In fact these should also be in place (max number of years) for Dáil members.

Where there's a will there's a way but when politicians control things this would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I believe having people in a legislature who aren't "part of the club" would be a really good thing.

If they want to save money reduce the number of TD's - there's really no reason for how many we have.

I like the sound of term limits. There's a page on Wikipedia on families on the Oireachtas and it'd take a stronger man than me to scroll all the way through it without heaving. Still, even with term limits you're going to have politicians. I don't see how having term limits in the Seanad would make it a more meaningful body.

[magpie seanie]

Set terms of office. In fact these should also be in place (max number of years) for Dáil members.

Where there's a will there's a way but when politicians control things this would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I believe having people in a legislature who aren't "part of the club" would be a really good thing.

If they want to save money reduce the number of TD's - there's really no reason for how many we have.

I like the sound of term limits. There's a page on Wikipedia on families on the Oireachtas and it'd take a stronger man than me to scroll all the way through it without heaving. Still, even with term limits you're going to have politicians. I don't see how having term limits in the Seanad would make it a more meaningful body.

It's more the independence that I'd be looking for. the term limits thing was simply an answer to your previous question.

I personally think the most undemocratic thing in the country is that we have TD's and Senators who have their minds made up for them the day the join a political party. The vast majority of that group have no input and just vote as they are told to. That's patently undemocratic in my opinion.

The system needs fundmental surgery - not a crude brush stroke like what's proposed.

[Maguire01]

The Government has decided to opt for cuts and greater centralisation of power. Instead of creating a more effective, transparent accountable democracy, the Government wants to abolish the Seanad, cut the number of elected representatives in the Dáil and in local government, and centralise even more power and authority into its hands.

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.

The cuts agenda that dominates this Government's thinking do not bring efficiency, as we have seen from the austerity policies. They lead to hardship, inefficiency and more inequality.

Not my words, but the words of Gerry Adams (courtesy of Slugger), only a few months ago...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T6Mk9a7_D4

So why the u-turn? Is it no longer a power-grab? Or is a power-grab now ok?