Printable View
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.
I will be voting no. Have put a blog together with my thoughts on this: http://lessthangruntledcitizen.wordp...-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
A man can dream!
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.
Speaking of Dublin....
http://www.mayor4dublin.ie/
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.
No, definitely not. He's one of the leading "lights" of democracy matters. Along with former FF candidate Noel Whelan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
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.
Ah- I knew I got that from somewhere, it was in the Des O Malley piece in the Irish Times recently.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
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???Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
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.