Why we should Retain the Seanad.

[Cassandra Syndrome]

I think that we should retain the Seanad because I think it is essential that we have a house that can look at legislation in depth. In fact I would like to strengthen the powers of the house so that it can block legislation but not money bills.

I would like the house to be totally independent, that is no party whip can be imposed. I would allow parties but would disallow sanctions against members who vote against party lines.

I would retain a house of 60 senators but I would like each county to elect a member and I would like the balance of members to be elected from a country wide ballot. The house would have 6 year terms and remain in continuous operation (would not fall with the government) with 1/3 of the members up for reelection every 2 years.

I would give the house powers to compel the government to enact legislation not money bills and force it to hold referenda. I would give the house the power to interview those for top state jobs such as Garda Commissioner, Judges at all levels, Heads of Department, State Bodies etc from this it would draw up a short list from which the government must make the appointment.

I would allow the house to call in and question state appointed people about their running of the body in question.

Yeah more power and money for bureaucrats, thats what this country needs. How about direct democracy, were the people scrutinise legislation and vote for it in their local townhalls?

[LgCastell]

i was thinking of reforms but then as i was discussing them with someone they pointed out that strengthened committees could perform th functions i envisaged...

I have to credit EK for mooting this some time back and it now seems to be the mainstream of political thinking ...

Reform should not stop with the Seanad abolition a whole host of reforms need to be made to the lower house... committees ... etc to take power away form gov and back to the dail i agree that there is no need for the seanad but it is only the tip of the iceberg ....

i also thing its a sham that FF are thinking of throwing this on the table now ...possibly to ad to their list of " we acheived this " when the childrens referendum has been called for for years but still lies on the Mins table ...

[TradCat]

Those are the sole reasons for Fianna Fail's new found interest in abolishing the Senate. What a cynical, corrupt collection of hoodlums.

That is right. But we should vote to abolish The Seanad and FF on the same day. They don't deserve any credit for stealing FG's idea.

As for reform I don't believe it will ever happen. The Dail will never allow a Seanad with real power. Nor should it. Let's abolish the version we have which we all agree is a disgrace. We can see how we get on and let people with proposals for a second house put them forward.

If you really wanted a decent second chamber why would you leave the old has-beens and wannabes around to block reform?

Remember FG and Lab will have a large majority in the next Dail. How good a Seanad would we have if it is to be made up of people who couldn't get elected in a landslide! Why would we want those dopes drawing salaries from the taxpayer?

[anarko]

Everyone happy with the way BL pushed through the banking legislation in December then? The OP does have a point worth considering.

(EDIT: agree with you dalywise - just thinking the system could be made stronger)

yea he does have a point
but did the seanad actually do any thing for us lately in this regard
even the president doesn't want to challenge dodgy legislation any more
the eu actually represents us better in this respect than any elected/non elected irish polititions

dalwise put the "distraction" better than i could have

[123]

I think that we should retain the Seanad because I think it is essential that we have a house that can look at legislation in depth. In fact I would like to strengthen the powers of the house so that it can block legislation but not money bills.

I would like the house to be totally independent, that is no party whip can be imposed. I would allow parties but would disallow sanctions against members who vote against party lines.

I would retain a house of 60 senators but I would like each county to elect a member and I would like the balance of members to be elected from a country wide ballot. The house would have 6 year terms and remain in continuous operation (would not fall with the government) with 1/3 of the members up for reelection every 2 years.

I would give the house powers to compel the government to enact legislation not money bills and force it to hold referenda. I would give the house the power to interview those for top state jobs such as Garda Commissioner, Judges at all levels, Heads of Department, State Bodies etc from this it would draw up a short list from which the government must make the appointment.

I would allow the house to call in and question state appointed people about their running of the body in question.

+1

Our Seanad needs to be more like the US senate and less like the british house of lords.

Scrapping it is just populist. I had hoped the Labour party would put foreward a better thought out policy than a brutal abolician. This is an opportunity to radically reform our political system and our constitution. It should a leading policy of any new government and not rushed into a March referendum.

The idea may seem popular now but once people look at the alternatives they will realise abolishing the Seanad would be careless while reform is what is needed.

[locke]

I'm not convinced of the arguments behind the abolition of the Seanad. Most indicate a problem with the way it is established rather than with the institution itself.

Scrap the Taoiseach's nominees and then see if it starts to be of some use when it isn't manipulated to give the sitting government a majority.

[cricket]

I think there is a need for a 2nd chamber to scrutinise legislation , perhaps an enhanced council of state idea. The set up with the Seanad at the moment has brought the chamber into absolute disrepute , it being a home to failed and aspiring TD's , elitists in the university sector and government party hacks.

[Rocky]

And there are two main reasons for this:

- a debate on the Seanad referendum will deflect from Fianna Fail's incompetence and corruption and the fact that FF has bankrupted the country and

- FF know that in the next Seanad they would have no more than 4 or 5 seats as they have so few councillors to elect them, and the Taoiseach's nominees wont be open to them. They would see the other parties with up to 55 Seanad members building future political bases from their Seanad seats (even if it were to be last Seanad ever).

Those are the sole reasons for Fianna Fail's new found interest in abolishing the Senate. What a cynical, corrupt collection of hoodlums.

They were strongly opposing it only a year ago. My big issue with putting the referendum forward in the next few months is there won't be enough time to do it right. The Seanad is mentioned a lot in the Constitution and it will be a big job to abolish and it should be done slowly and correctly or there will be big constitutional issues in the future and it will just cause more problems. There isn't enough time to do it before the next election.

The big plus is we wouldn't have another pointless Seanad, but I think my first point outweighs that.

[Jayuu]

Most countries of our size and population seem to cope with a one-chamber parliament. There's no reason why Ireland can't do the same.

[Alexis Colby]

Well listening to Sen Joe O' Toole on RTE Radio 1 at lunch today

we need the Seanad to prevent a Hitler/Mussolini/Franco type from taking over!!!