Kenny's Seanad solo run sparks fury in FG

**Dodge** · 19/10/2009, 7:35 PM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

See my first post on the subject. I know we had fun times making everything disposable during the boom, but you can actually repair things you know.

I read it. I disagreed with it.

**dahamsta** · 19/10/2009, 8:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

I read it. I disagreed with it.

Sorry Dodge, my mind-reading chip is on the blink at the moment.

**BohsPartisan** · 19/10/2009, 11:46 PM

eliminate all 60 senators

Sounds great. Can I help?

**Ringo** · 20/10/2009, 6:49 AM

A series of recent statements by the Fine Gael leader contradict his claim that he was wanted to abolish the Seanad for "quite some time".

Six months ago, at the height of a 'Late Late Show' debate, the party produced its proposals to "radically overhaul" the operation of the Dail and Seanad.

Two days later, Mr Kenny said the Seanad's workings could be changed but the second parliament should be retained.

"I don't see a necessity to abolish the Seanad," he said on LMFM in March. "I see a changed and more important role for it than is being given traditionally."

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...t-1918402.html

A lot of "i'm the leader yestersday". Kenny trying to look tough!

**Macy** · 21/10/2009, 8:08 AM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Never mind its lack of activity, its so undemocratic in its representation that even Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez would baulk at it.

No idea why you'd bracket Chavez with Kim Jong Il. Are you a member of the Republican Party?

Originally Posted by Sheridan

We have a supreme court and a president to scrutinise issues of constitutionality, the Senate does sod all except function as a sort of undeclared honours system

Get rid of the inbuilt Government majority by getting rid of the taoiseach's nominees.

Have the elections after local elections rather than tied to Dail elections - if that was the case now there'd be a clear opposition majority in the the Seanad and you can bet it would be scrutinising and sending bills back. (And then we'd be having a debate about how it should be abolished for slowing down legislation

)

**OneRedArmy** · 21/10/2009, 8:20 AM

Originally Posted by Macy

No idea why you'd bracket Chavez with Kim Jong Il. Are you a member of the Republican Party?

Neither are the friends of democracy. Happy to throw in any right wing undemocratic systems either, those were the two that came first to mind!

The point was the the Seanad is ridiculously narrow and effectively undemocratic in its structure. Even allowing for that, it achieves very little.

**dahamsta** · 21/10/2009, 9:15 AM

I'd agree with ORA on Chavez. Chavez is the same as every dictator before him, it starts for "the good of the people" and ends "for the good of me and my mates". People need to take another look at him before continuing to lionise.

I'd maintain my "if it's broke, fix it" stance on the Seanad. Disbanding it entirely because of bad management is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

adam

**Dodge** · 21/10/2009, 9:50 AM

Some babies deserve to be thrown out

**SligoBrewer** · 21/10/2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Sheridan

Those are people we're stupid enough to elect.

Sorry but David Norris?

**BohsPartisan** · 21/10/2009, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I'd agree with ORA on Chavez. Chavez is the same as every dictator before him,

This and ORA's comments are ridiculous. I'm actually not a big fan of Chavez and the direction he's taking the bolivarian revolution in but calling him a dictator is bang out of order, unless Obama is one, Brown is one, Sarko is one, Cowen is one... Chavez was elected over and over again, faced a recall referendum, won, was elected again.

I think his regime has done a hell of a lot of good but I'd agree that its overbearingly bureaucratic, but what state isn't?

**OneRedArmy** · 21/10/2009, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

This and ORA's comments are ridiculous. I'm actually not a big fan of Chavez and the direction he's taking the bolivarian revolution in but calling him a dictator is bang out of order, unless Obama is one, Brown is one, Sarko is one, Cowen is one... Chavez was elected over and over again, faced a recall referendum, won, was elected again.

I think his regime has done a hell of a lot of good but I'd agree that its overbearingly bureaucratic, but what state isn't?

I didn't use the word dictator, but I agree with dahamsta that he's moving that way.

Leave aside the (alleged) good he's done (and sitting on an ocean of oil makes many things easier to achieve), he's taken a number of actions that have negatively impacted democracy.

Happy to discuss this further in a separate thread, but when you scrape under the anti-American speechifying and tub-thumping (which is a good thing, if only for humour value), there's quite a few alarming things he's done, particularly in the last 12 months.

**dahamsta** · 21/10/2009, 8:27 PM

What ORA said. Alarming is an understatement.

**John83** · 22/10/2009, 8:57 AM

So, FG have backed Kenny's stream-of-consciousness as a source of policy. I kind of figured they would - in fact, I suspect this was a planned attempt to have Kenny appear to be leading from the front in the press, when in fact he's more of a cattle (or cat) herding type anyway.