Seanad Éireann

[OwlsFan]

I was somewhat surprised by the Labour Party poster: A red placard "One people, one parliament, one vote". It immediately brought to mind the Nazi posters also on red backgrounds "Ein Land, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer" - strange.

I usually have a good idea well in advance in referenda what way I am going to vote but not this one. A saving of €20 million is nothing in terms of the overall budget deficit. Does the Senate actually have a worthwhile function? I just don't know. Will have to read up on it.

[Mr A]

I will be voting no. Have put a blog together with my thoughts on this: http://lessthangruntledcitizen.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/thoughts-on-the-seanad-abolition-referendum-why-i-will-vote-no/

Basically I think a second house should play an important role in the function of our parliament. It should be reformed rather than abolished, but the government parties are taking the easy way out. It is utterly bizarre to see FG posters with "Vote No For Fewer Politicians" on them. They're actually trading on the people's poor perception of politicians rather than attempting to address it, and in doing so eloquently showing how poor politics in this country has become.

[dahamsta]

I will of course be voting no, because I don't pay attention to populist claptrap. I don't want to though, because both the generators and believes of said populist claptrap will view this - with glee, on the part of the former - as a validation of the status quo. And I can't afford to write REFORM across my ballot card, for fear of being the vote that mattered. So just a normal referendum(b) then.

[Spudulika]

I'm coming home to vote as I do not trust the cabal in charge. I can understand if they want to a) reform, b) replace or c) end political appointments, but just dumping it is beyond me. I've always voted in Seanad elections and brought it to the attention (years ago) of our rep from UCD that the manner of election to the house is deeply unfair and that it should be an election open to all, including the Irish abroad. What's on offer now is a very disingenuous game played on the emotions of a weary, uninformed public and the black arts are out in full view.

If Seanad elections were held at the same time as general elections, even if a government falls, the vote is open to all (including Irish abroad) and the Seanad has increased powers, we could go some way to balancing out the mess delivered to us by the ruling elite in the 1920's. A reformed Seanad could also mean a reduction in TD's, 100 TD's and 50 Senators are more than enough.

[culloty82]

I too will be voting no - the Quinn-Zappone plan that was launched a few months back outlines how a reformed upper house should work, and a "No" vote seems the only way to bring such change about. As for the Yes arguments, it would seem that the best place to eliminate politicians would be the Dáil, which could function perfectly well with about 100 TDs, there's no real costing as to the €20m saving bandied about, and the Dáil is unlikely to challenge existing and present governments so long as the whip system and the Economic Management Council hobbles backbenchers.

If the abolition of the Seanad was accompanied by a devolution of powers to local government, similar to Switzerland or Scandinavia, there would be some argument for a unicameral system, but this seems unlikely to happen any time soon. Finally, one article mentioned in the Referendum Commission booklet says that the current provision whereby TDs and Senators can petition the President to hold a referendum would be scrapped, which would be a retrograde step to sneak under the radar.

[NeverFeltBetter]

That would be the Presidents petition that has never been used?

I have no faith at all in the "Reform" movement. No party in the Dail, or powerless independents, will be reforming the Seanad anytime soon. Even when the people voted for the most minor of reforms to the Seanad in the 70s, it was never implemented. This is retention or abolition.

The Seanad is a horrible arm of government, undemocratic, weak and serving no useful purpose that could not be easily subsumed into the Dail without any real change in the way politics works in Ireland. It does not perform its stated function, even its vaunted amendments to legislation have to be Ok'd by the Dail. Its cost means nothing to me; the fact that its existence means I am somehow imbued with superior democratic rights than, say, my parents, because I have a degree from one of the lucky institutions does (and it amazes me that just about every reform plan retains that hideous model to some degree).

And since I refuse to buy into the idea that "No" means reform, I'm left with a choice of voting to keep this second chamber as it is, or dumping it. That's an easy choice for me.

[BonnieShels]

That would be the Presidents petition that has never been used?

I have no faith at all in the "Reform" movement. No party in the Dail, or powerless independents, will be reforming the Seanad anytime soon. Even when the people voted for the most minor of reforms to the Seanad in the 70s, it was never implemented. This is retention or abolition.

The Seanad is a horrible arm of government, undemocratic, weak and serving no useful purpose that could not be easily subsumed into the Dail without any real change in the way politics works in Ireland. It does not perform its stated function, even its vaunted amendments to legislation have to be Ok'd by the Dail. Its cost means nothing to me; the fact that its existence means I am somehow imbued with superior democratic rights than, say, my parents, because I have a degree from one of the lucky institutions does (and it amazes me that just about every reform plan retains that hideous model to some degree).

And since I refuse to buy into the idea that "No" means reform, I'm left with a choice of voting to keep this second chamber as it is, or dumping it. That's an easy choice for me.

Preceisely the same post I was coming in here to make.

There will be no reform if we keep it. Why woul there be?

Plus a general rule-of-thumb I have is if FF are for it, I'm agin'; it!

[Dodge]

Any meaningful reform of Irish politics will see the Seanad abolished anyway (with more mores to local authorities replacing it).

A directly elected second house is pointless for a country our size, adn the current system will ensure the ruling party/coalition always has a majority in it.

I'll be voting yes as without this first step, there will be ZERO reforms made in Irish politics.

(I also feel the party who've been in power for over 80% of the state's independence calling for reform is pretty pathetic. They could have done as at any stage in the past 30 years...)

[peadar1987]

Any meaningful reform of Irish politics will see the Seanad abolished anyway (with more mores to local authorities replacing it).

A directly elected second house is pointless for a country our size, adn the current system will ensure the ruling party/coalition always has a majority in it.

I'll be voting yes as without this first step, there will be ZERO reforms made in Irish politics.

(I also feel the party who've been in power for over 80% of the state's independence calling for reform is pretty pathetic. They could have done as at any stage in the past 30 years...)

Abolish the Seanad, shrink the Dáil to 50-100 deputies, devolve more power to local councils to avoid parish-pump politics clogging up the national government.

A man can dream!

[Macy]

The "Reform" campaign is lead by people that have had plenty of opportunity to reform the Seanad. How many years were Martin and FF, and McDowell around the bloody cabinet table to carry out these great reforms? If I thought there was genuine reform - direct elections based on county constituencies (split counties mean a lack of representation in the Dail), with a list system, a constituency for the north (all residents), one for Britain and one for the rest of the world based on citizenship etc., then I might vote to save it. As it stands, it is politicians and parties that have used the Taoiseach nominees, and their councillors’ votes, to set up political careers over the years that are the most vociferous in retaining and it tells me all I really need to know.

I'd also see reform of local Government as more important to be honest. This should be done on a regional basis where appropriate (probably most cases), rather than county boundaries. There are effectively 6 county councils involved in the Dublin Conurbation - how can you possibly have joined up thinking? And so we end up with unnecessary and undemocratic layers in between them and Government to formulate regional policy.

[Dodge]

Speaking of Dublin....

http://www.mayor4dublin.ie/

[Mr A]

I thought McDowell was pro abolition?

FF have no credibility, but the mere fact they're on the No side doesn't make it wrong. On reform I'd prefer to see it elected nationally rather than on a county basis- I don't think it's a problem if Leitrim doesn't have a parliamentarian to be honest and would like to see us escape that mentality.

[Macy]

I thought McDowell was pro abolition?
No, definitely not. He's one of the leading "lights" of democracy matters. Along with former FF candidate Noel Whelan.


On reform I'd prefer to see it elected nationally rather than on a county basis- I don't think it's a problem if Leitrim doesn't have a parliamentarian to be honest and would like to see us escape that mentality.
It probably wouldn't be my personal preference. I'd see it as part of a wider reform - if we were to move away from county based administration of local authorities, and (imo) towards bigger Dail constituencies, I don't see any harm in having 26 senators based on counties, with a national list along side. You have to deal with the mindset that's there as well.

[Charlie Darwin]

McDowell was pro-abolition in the 80s and 90s and actually refused a Seanad nomination when he lost his seat in 1989. His gripe now seems to be that he hates Fine Gael and he sees it as a power-grab with no possibility of Dail reform if it's abolished.

[Mr A]

Ah- I knew I got that from somewhere, it was in the Des O Malley piece in the Irish Times recently.

[mypost]

I thought McDowell was pro abolition?

FF have no credibility, but the mere fact they're on the No side doesn't make it wrong. On reform I'd prefer to see it elected nationally rather than on a county basis- I don't think it's a problem if Leitrim doesn't have a parliamentarian to be honest and would like to see us escape that mentality.

If we elect the Senate, then the majority in it may not reflect the Parliament's majority, thereby creating the kind of chaos we've seen in Italy, and more recently America, where opposing sides of the political divide rule the roosts and consensus is difficult, at times impossible.

The Yes side have had a dreadful campaign, full of errors. €20 million is a wrong figure and in any case, is still nothing compared to the size of the state budget. The Senate is a joke because it's been allowed to become a joke. It can be reformed if the will is there to do so, just like the Parliament can, and has been.

I will be voting no to both referendums. If both are accepted, then the amount saved from one vote, will simply be spent on the outcome of the other.

[Macy]

If we elect the Senate, then the majority in it may not reflect the Parliament's majority, thereby creating the kind of chaos we've seen in Italy, and more recently America, where opposing sides of the political divide rule the roosts and consensus is difficult, at times impossible.

The Yes side have had a dreadful campaign, full of errors. €20 million is a wrong figure and in any case, is still nothing compared to the size of the state budget. The Senate is a joke because it's been allowed to become a joke. It can be reformed if the will is there to do so, just like the Parliament can, and has been.

I will be voting no to both referendums. If both are accepted, then the amount saved from one vote, will simply be spent on the outcome of the other.
The Seanad can't ultimately block legislation - it's not a true comparison comparing it to the situation in the US or Italy. It doesn't have to be consensus. The Dail has been reformed???

[NeverFeltBetter]

There has been numerous changes to the way the Dail works recently, and a few more are planned - sitting more, less TD's after next election, more committee powers, gender quotas, 12 month legislation review, etc.

The current situation in America is a potent example of dangers of bicameralism, true bicameralism, bringing government to a standstill. A lot of the reform plans out there suggest increasing the Seanad's powers to basically match that of the Dail. In a multi-party system like ours, that could easily turn into a gigantic mess, and would require a stronger executive in the form of the President, but even that wouldn't guarantee the smooth running of legislative processes.

It pretty much seems like it will come down to turnout now anyway. Weather is supposed to be a mixed bag Friday, bad during the day, better in the evening. Low turnout is good for No side.

[mypost]

The Seanad can't ultimately block legislation - it's not a true comparison comparing it to the situation in the US or Italy. It doesn't have to be consensus.

They can delay a bill for a fair amount of time. When you elect both houses by the ballot box, you can have a government coalition leading one chamber and an opposition group leading the other. Imagine the chaos there can be trying to get an urgent welfare bill, finance bill, or banking legislation through with that set up? The Yanks are discovering it now, while the current Italian government is a sham.

I don't want to elect the Senate members. The majority there has to reflect the Parliament majority to be in any way effective. It's a joke now, because it's a consolation prize for ex-TDs, who don't take it seriously, some who don't turn up for votes, and spend two days a week waffling for long periods about nothing of substance. That situation can be reformed, if the will is there to do it. Rejecting the ref isn't going to reform it anytime soon, but at least keeps open the possibility of Senate reform in the future.

[Macy]

There has been numerous changes to the way the Dail works recently, and a few more are planned - sitting more, less TD's after next election, more committee powers, gender quotas, 12 month legislation review, etc.
It's all píssing around the edges though - if that's the type of reforms that we could expect if the Seanad is retained, then it isn't much reform at all.

mypost - I'm a bit bemused by you're support for retaining it. You don't want it to have more power, and want to keep the current system. You're the only person that I've met that's openly saying that (I know it's what most of the leaders of the No campaign really want) - it seems to be a personality issue for you. The only way that will change will be through direct elections rather than politicians smoosing politicians. FF, the champions of reform (well since sometime since their 2011 manifesto where they supported abolition), have kept most of the old time senators, with the addition of Dail election failures like Averil Power and Thomas Byrne.

[Spudulika]

I can only believe that the country deserves its fate by voting yes on the 2 amendments. While I know Monty Martin was looking the grandstand, that the dear leader didn't have the courage to show up on prime time for a debate draws parallels with the worst leaders about. Putin refused to debate, Medvedev too, they stated that it was pointless. It was true arrogance and a symbol of rigged elections or worse, a bovine electorate.

Can anyone imagine the liberal media in europe and the US if the same situation played out in Russia? But in Ireland we do as we're told. I would like a new.y set up senate, plus more power for county councils and a slashing of tds. Nothing will happen though. Curious timing for these refenda thoigh.

[Mr A]

I think the idea of two houses having differing coalitions in charge of them would be quite healthy- checks and balances would be in place and compromise necessary. On the other hand a truly popular government could win the mid term Senate election and have a stronger mandate for their policies.

Although the US is having issues currently this is historically the exception rather than the rule.

[Eminence Grise]

You don't cut off your foot because you have an itchy toe.

This referendum is nothing more than the grubbiest of power grabs by a government whose attitude to democracy would make even the most cynical blush for shame. For unicameralism to work, we need a strong, autonomous system of local governmnment; instead, FG are closing down 80 town councils next year and centralising local democracy even more in the Department of the Environment and Local Government. (I wrote a policy paper on LG reform for a party, and I know how it can be done, but that's for another day.)

Arguably, the Dail, which is the more important and empowered of the two houses, is far more disfunctional and unrepresentative than the Seanad, but nobody is talking about serious reform there. It's a indictment of the government that their best argument for abolition is that we can save a fairytale amount of money (discredited by Seanad officials themselves) while they continue to squander the public purse on fripperies and expenses.

The Seanad needs to be reformed, not airbrushed out of politics. That reform could start with the stroke of a pen: the franchise can be widened to allow all third level graduates to vote (we passed this in a referendum in the late 1970s ffs, but never wrote the legislation to effect the people's will). That would be an imperfect reform, but another couple of hundred thousand voters would, in the short term, address the unrepresentative argument until the franchise can be fully extended. We don't want the paralysis of two houses led by different parties, but enhanced powers of oversight and legislative initiative would make the Seanad more democratically functional.

If we abolish, we hand power on a plate to a cabale of 15 politicians, and worse - about two dozen unelected special advisors and party hacks. This government has used the guillotine with more shameful abandon than even FF to stifle the right of debate. The Dail will give a figleaf of democratic accountability to a powerful elite, able to manipulate the house for its own purposes.

Is that something anybody wants to see?

No. No. No.

[mypost]

It's all píssing around the edges though - if that's the type of reforms that we could expect if the Seanad is retained, then it isn't much reform at all.

mypost - I'm a bit bemused by you're support for retaining it. You don't want it to have more power, and want to keep the current system. You're the only person that I've met that's openly saying that (I know it's what most of the leaders of the No campaign really want) - it seems to be a personality issue for you. The only way that will change will be through direct elections rather than politicians smoosing politicians. FF, the champions of reform (well since sometime since their 2011 manifesto where they supported abolition), have kept most of the old time senators, with the addition of Dail election failures like Averil Power.

That's what reform is in this instance. Its internal house reform. If you want reform of politics in Ireland, that's a wider question that isn't asked in this referendum.

The current impasse in America is not a one off, but the latest this year and there's another major obstacle coming down the line shortly.

The Senate badly needs reform, but holding a nationwide ballot would only make things worse for the reasons I've previously outlined.

[BonnieShels]

Well here's something I done and wrote about voting YES:


Seanad Referendum- YES

On Friday 4th October most adults in Ireland will finally get to chance to have a Seanad vote.
And I for one hope it is the last.

There are numerous reasons for voting yes and quite a few for voting no and I have mulled over the options since the date was announced.

There has been nothing compelling from the ‘NO’ side as to why we should keep this post-colonial anachronism.
Sure, we are removing half the houses of the Oireachtas but we are removing the most ineffectual arm of the States Administration.
The Seanad has never had any real power. It was a sop to the “isolated” Unionists that had found them selves “stranded” in DeValera’s Southern Catholic State.

The few powers it does have it rarely uses and to be honest the obscure nature of these is not a reason to keep it around in the hope that maybe they will delay a Money Bill- unlikely given the majority the government have in the Seanad. Or maybe they will petition the President under Article 27 of the Constitution- never has that been used since the adoption of Bunreacht na hEireann in 1937.
In truth the Seanad as it is constructed, is a kindergarten for aspiring politicians (Averil Power), the unelectable (Ivana Bacik), aloof and eccentric personalities (David Norris) and the recently dismissed from the Dail (Dara O’Brian).

And that’s exactly how it will remain if this Referendum is defeated on Friday.

Since the 1930s there have been 12 reports into reforming the Seanad and not one of them has brought us any change to how the political system works. Do we really believe that if this Constitutional amendment is defeated that we would get any meaningful reform? I don’t think so.

I agree that there are merits for reforming the Seanad but when will this actually be done? Isn’t it better to be rid of the blasted thing and focus on proper reform of our institutions, namely the comedy-show of local government and the horror-show of Dail Eireann?
The calls from the “NO” side are almost comical. I’d laugh if it weren’t such disgraceful manipulation.

Those thinking that it is a power-grab by Fine Gael and Labour are talking through their proverbials. The Government will always have a majority in the Seanad as the Taoiseach nominates 11 members. Losing the Seanad will not change the powers the Government have.
There has been some commentary about how the Seanad gives a chance of representation of the citizens who live in Fermanagh, Armagh, Tyrone, Down, Antrim and Derry. But how? Why would anyone in their right mind, be they Nationalist or Unionist, think it would be appropriate for their democratic voice to be holed up in a room in the corner of Leinster House? Why aren’t these commentators shouting for real representation for our disenfranchised citizenry in the National Parliament, the Dail?

And of course we have heard the calls for expanding the Seanad franchise to all citizens and increasing its powers? But why?
Do we really need a smaller version of the Dail duplicating work and being an all-round nuisance? Or imagine another house that causes stasis if it doesn’t get its own way? Just look at that beacon of democracy, the United States…
What will the purpose of this reformed house be? The answer is, no one knows!

Both Fine Gael and Labour were elected with a mandate for political reform. And they are doing it. It seems people have forgotten the recent constitutional convention which proposes a whole range of overarching changes to how our State is run.
The “YES” side haven’t covered themselves in glory and neither have the “NO” side but we need to look at this for the good of this State.

If you love this country and you want to effect real political change then vote “YES” and wave goodbye to Seanad Eireann.
I won’t miss it.
So let’s once and for all bury this old hag of Colonialism and start anew.

http://www.krank.ie/category/opinions/seanad-referendum-voting-yes/

[Eminence Grise]

Ah, Bonnie, a mandate for reform? I thought more of you (genuinely) than to fall for that hoary old chestnut. I agree there is so much about the Seanad that is useless and outmoded. But isn't it funny how Inda's government's only reforming action to date has been to abolish town councils and foist this referendum on us - and not provide any indication of how the Dail will function better as a result. Proper reform needs a clear plan and vision for how the system will work better. Excising parts so that the Dail gets even more power isn't reform. It is a power grab. So let me predict a few things. More use of the guillotine. More enforcement of the whip system. More highly paid sinecures on Oireachtas committees once the workload increases because there are 60 fewer parliamentarians to share the burden. More centralised spindoctoring from unelected special advisors. Fewer independent voices to hold the government to account.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do. I'll gladly eat my hat and have Enid Blyton-size lashings of humble pie if abolition makes things work out for the better. But I have a horrible, sick feeling that this is a day that will come back to haunt us for a long, long time.

[Charlie Darwin]

If you love this country and you want to effect real political change then vote “YES”
Ah Jaysus, Bonnie, that's some awful ****e.

[mypost]

It's 4 years to the week, since we had to vote on Lisbon, and promised everything and the kitchen sink for doing what the government said. What did we get? The slow erosion of democracy, the four year plan, the IMF, and rampant emigration.

What will we get now for doing what the government said? A removal of another state watchdog. After the next general election.

[Mr A]

On the bright side, I haven't been conscripted in the EU army.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Another awful turnout. With voters this apathetic, opinion polls are meaningless. 50/50 it looks like now.

[Real ale Madrid]

I hope I'm wrong. I really do. I'll gladly eat my hat and have Enid Blyton-size lashings of humble pie if abolition makes things work out for the better. But I have a horrible, sick feeling that this is a day that will come back to haunt us for a long, long time.

Oh ye of little faith - maybe we are not going to get rid of The Seanad after all?

[Charlie Darwin]

The Seanad is too close to call with the No vote winning out in most working class urban areas. Little being said about the courts referendum but it seems it will pass comfortably.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Nah, its all over bar the shouting. Dublin/Leinster No margin can't be recouped by tiny Yes margins in Munster and parts of the west.

Dissapointed. No faith in reform being implemented, and turned off by actual reform plans suggested from numerous places anyway. Margin really isn't that big, so wouldn't have taken that much of an extra effort from FG, Lab or SF to pass, but really bad campaign focus, poor leadership, and total underestimation of electorate's feelings.

But maybe more disappointed with the turnout. Somewhere between 15-20 per cent of our electorate "won" this vote. Slightly less lost. The rest didn't care. If we need reform, maybe its to how we actually do elections.

[Eminence Grise]

So, by the narrowest of margins, the Seanad survives. Nobody can take the result as a ringing endorsement for the status quo; it’s been quite apparent that reform was the preferred option, yet - shamefully - one that was neither attempted by Kenny, nor put to the people.

So, what reform of the Seanad would people here like to see?

To get the ball rolling, I’d like:



A reduction to 40 Senators - 10 elected in each of the four EU constituencies by universal adult suffrage.
Elections held on the same day as the general election, with candidates standing for one house only.
STV used for elections to ensure that independents have a voice; the size of the constituency should ensure that localism is reduced as a factor. (I’d introduce PR-List in larger constituencies for Dáil elections precisely to eliminate local issue TDs).
With an enhanced democratic mandate, change the constitutional provision that two Senators may be appointed ministers to a requirement that two must be ministers. This would ensure that more legislation would be initiated in the house, and broaden the pool of talent available to the Taoiseach of the day (15 out of c.200 instead of 15 out of c.160 makes a difference in quality).
MEPs to be ex officio members, with the duty of attending on set days (but not voting) in order to initiate debate/explain EU policy and, particularly, laws that are implemented by statutory instrument (i.e. transposed into Irish law without being placed before either house).
Enhanced powers of oversight and initiation of legislation.
The Seanad can delay, but not reject a bill. Where the Seanad fails to pass a Dáil bill, a joint houses committee should be granted power to reach a compromise bill (similar to how disagreements between the EU Council of Ministers and Parliament are resolved).
Salary and remuneration to remain the same, but the Seanad week to increase from three to five days.

[mypost]

The turnout is the turnout. I hate having to wait a day for the answer to a straight forward Yes/No question, but that's the way we run our elections/referendums.

Delighted with the Senate result, if rather surprised. Apparantly, the No side were 20/1 with one bookie to prevail earlier this week. Disappointed with the result of the other ref and the margin of the result, it will merely complicate an already overcrowded legal situation, and result in more money spent to recruit more judges to give different verdicts, leading to even more appeals. Although I reckon most people didn't understand what exactly they were voting for.

The Yes side lost the campaign and deserved to. They assumed the "savings" gimmick would work, but getting their figures wrong was embarrassing. Enda refusing to debate the merits of his own proposal was a catastrophic error. While TD's and Senators who voted against the proposal at the ballot box after voting with it in parliament was laughable. Instead of looking for excuses, the Yes campaign should look at why they threw away the referendum, as this is one that won't be run again.

[mypost]

I've already said what should be done.

Holding elections for it, like they do in America can be and has been counter productive. In Ireland, it's not the public's fault that Senators get paid handsomely to sit and talk crap for 1 full day a week. It's not the public's fault that important bills are debated in a deserted chamber, nor that they treat the place as a holiday camp. We don't need to waste resources on elections to reform those issues.

[jebus]

I'd give it no power whatsoever and simply have it as a talking shop similar to the Constitutional Convention that is on-going.

Have 60 seats in the senate with 20 made up from political parties (split along similar lines as the sitting Dail), 30 rotating seats split between education, health, NGOs & other groups working regularly with the government and affected by their policies and 10 rotating seats for the general public (run it like jury duty but with the freedom to opt out, the government pays whatever wage is owed for the 1-2 weeks they are called upon to sit).

Would literally have them just debate the government policies of the day and the Constitution in general. people underestimate the power of ideas being talked about in the media. They can make recommendations to the government based on their discussions and hold up bills for a short period until their arguments are heard but the Dail will do as it pleases anyway, there's no point pretending other wise and it's arguable that they should, as democratically elected officials, listen to them anyway. Have the political senators there to be held accountable for the actions of their parties and just allow proper public discourse to happen to hopefully shape the way citizens think about matters of the state going forward.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I can't find the link, but that reminds of someone who (jokingly) argued that the Seanad's impotence meant it could have its role filled by the Irish Times letter page.

[BonnieShels]

Ah Jaysus, Bonnie, that's some awful ****e.

I know. It worked a treat seemingly.

I can't help going down the auld Fox News angle sometimes.

[BonnieShels]

Ah, Bonnie, a mandate for reform? I thought more of you (genuinely) than to fall for that hoary old chestnut. I agree there is so much about the Seanad that is useless and outmoded. But isn't it funny how Inda's government's only reforming action to date has been to abolish town councils and foist this referendum on us - and not provide any indication of how the Dail will function better as a result. Proper reform needs a clear plan and vision for how the system will work better. Excising parts so that the Dail gets even more power isn't reform. It is a power grab. So let me predict a few things. More use of the guillotine. More enforcement of the whip system. More highly paid sinecures on Oireachtas committees once the workload increases because there are 60 fewer parliamentarians to share the burden. More centralised spindoctoring from unelected special advisors. Fewer independent voices to hold the government to account.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do. I'll gladly eat my hat and have Enid Blyton-size lashings of humble pie if abolition makes things work out for the better. But I have a horrible, sick feeling that this is a day that will come back to haunt us for a long, long time.

I didn't fall for anything.

It’s surprisingly difficult to come out on one side or the other when you don’t feel so strongly about abolition or reform. As I was voting yes I figured it would be best to throw the kitchen sink at it. 

I think that this result may be the only way that reform can happen as it seem a fait accompli that YES would win.

Also I love old chestnuts. Hoary or not.

[dahamsta]

The Seanad needs to be given more power, not less, and for that reason direct elections are needed. As much as I dislike many aspects of US politics, IMHO the House and Senate model, despite it's flaws, is a good setup. We have an opportunity to refine it here....

...which of course we never do, the SORN motor tax debacle being a perfect example. A good system in the UK, which needed just a little refinement to be perfect, and we screw it up. Oh, and Leap/Oyster. "Sorry sir, if you want a refund of the 80c we overcharged you, you need to spend a multiple of that travelling to O'Connell Street to get it back". Talk about a con job.

[dahamsta]

Merging the general and reform threads, I think they're both really the same thing.

And putting the fada where it belongs. Tsk tsk.

[Charlie Darwin]

Seanad %C9ireann
Irish is a beautiful language. It really is.

[Macy]

1st reform I'd make - you can't run for the Dail or Senead, immediately after serving in the other house. i.e. a TD that fails to get reelected couldn't then run in Senead for that term, and someone couldn't come out of the Senead and then run for a TD. They'd have to take a term's break from either before changing house. That one decision would stop it being simply a retirement home/ training (or profile building) ground. Parties could implement that now!

I have to say that I am warming to the suggestion that direct elections be done on a panel basis rather than a geographic basis. Citizens would self declare for the relevant panel in which they want to vote (and one vote per person). There'd have to be a more open nomination process though than at present.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Any reform model that maintains the university constituencies will have nothing but my contempt.

[Eminence Grise]

Also I love old chestnuts. Hoary or not.

Well, Inda's now got some roasted ones to share. And quite a few other nuts in FG as well!!

[Macy]

Any reform model that maintains the university constituencies will have nothing but my contempt.
I wouldn't have a problem with retaining them, if everyone had a vote in one of the other panels, as I mentioned in my post. One vote per person, self designation (in advance) to what panel you wish to vote in Administrative Panel; Agricultural Panel; Cultural and Educational Panel; Industrial and Commercial Panel; Labour Panel; TCD Panel; NUI Panel.

If they want to show they're superior by voting for the likes of Mullen, let them off. I don't need them messing up the voting in which ever panel I pick!

[Mr A]

I found this piece on the US situation quite interesting. Their system is so different to ours that direct comparison makes little sense, but there is always something to learn from such things: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24433182

The impact of the opening of candidature via primaries is interesting- we'd all like to see less of the whip system but it can also have unintended results.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I wouldn't have a problem with retaining them, if everyone had a vote in one of the other panels, as I mentioned in my post. One vote per person, self designation (in advance) to what panel you wish to vote in Administrative Panel; Agricultural Panel; Cultural and Educational Panel; Industrial and Commercial Panel; Labour Panel; TCD Panel; NUI Panel.

If they want to show they're superior by voting for the likes of Mullen, let them off. I don't need them messing up the voting in which ever panel I pick!

Ditch the university panels, with all of their self-evident problems when it comes to a democratic legislature, and I'd be happy to go along with any employment based panels as an alternative to the basic geographical model (which would still be my preference, but you can't have everything). That at least is a vote for everyone, as opposed to a special vote for those somehow considered democratically superior due to perceived intelligence (and privilege in many cases).

Of course, that would require another referendum, which will never happen.

[Macy]

we'd all like to see less of the whip system but it can also have unintended results.
Would we? The only problem with the whip system is weak arse politicians who don't have the backbone to vote how they claim to want to vote, and hide behind it as an excuse.

The political class seem to have it as their "blame the system not the politicians" excuse of the moment - a TD is not obliged to take the whip, or obliged to vote with their party if they fundamentally disagree with a motion. It takes backbone, nothing else. Additionally, as an electorate, we could have a whipless system now if we wanted (it doesn't need any reform, or amendment) - we could vote entirely for independent candidates.