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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
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.
Well here's something I done and wrote about voting YES:
http://www.krank.ie/category/opinion...um-voting-yes/Quote:
Originally Posted by KRANK.IE
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.
Ah Jaysus, Bonnie, that's some awful ****e.Quote:
If you love this country and you want to effect real political change then vote “YES”
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.
On the bright side, I haven't been conscripted in the EU army.
Another awful turnout. With voters this apathetic, opinion polls are meaningless. 50/50 it looks like now.
Oh ye of little faith - maybe we are not going to get rid of The Seanad after all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know. It worked a treat seemingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I can't help going down the auld Fox News angle sometimes.
I didn't fall for anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
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.