POLL: Should the Seanad be abolished?

[Gimpanzee]

Reform sounds nice, but I don't see any possibility of it being genuine reform that would result in the Seanad functioning primarily for the benefit of the state and not the political system. Abolish it, and if/when we get proper overhaul of government structures (partial list system, big reduction of no of TD's) a new second chamber can be added if it makes sense. I'd be more confident of a second chamber created from scratch serving a valuable purpose than a reformed seanad.

[Des Quirell]

David,

Any chance of restricting the poll to graduates of the National Universities?

I've never voted in a Senate Election and will refuse to do until it is democratically elected. My voting paper is always returned with some apt comments.

[Boggle]

Get rid of the seanad and the county councils and have provincial govts and a national govt, each with their own roles.

[Deadlock]

While I'd be very much in favour of a visible body with the permanent duty of providing oversight of EU affairs (as opposed to the Committee), the Seanad could not realistically provide oversight of Ireland's Commissioner, because Ireland's Commissioner is not Ireland's, and is required not to be answerable to any national body or government.

Nor should a reformed Seanad have "oversight" over MEPs - they're elected themselves, and answerable at the ballot box to their constituents.

What would be more useful would be if the Seanad provided oversight of our government's actions in Europe, on the Council of Ministers and the European Council. That's the bit we're missing.

Thanks Ibis - I accept that what you say and agree oversight of all policy would be a fine start.

As you say this would be difficult as they are not answerable to national bodies, but perhaps arising out of their respect to and esteem for democracy and accountability these good people could offer or be otherwise persuaded to invest a quantum of their time and opinions, regulary to a reformed Seanad. While I agree MEPs are answerable to their electorates, they are not highly visible, and such Seanad interviews may help connect the people more with their MEPs and the EU parliament.

[ibis]

Reform sounds nice, but I don't see any possibility of it being genuine reform that would result in the Seanad functioning primarily for the benefit of the state and not the political system. Abolish it, and if/when we get proper overhaul of government structures (partial list system, big reduction of no of TD's) a new second chamber can be added if it makes sense. I'd be more confident of a second chamber created from scratch serving a valuable purpose than a reformed seanad.

Unfortunately, I'd see it as more likely that a unicameral Oireachtas would find itself quite sufficient, thanks.

Looking at this quite cynically, I'd call this a massive constitutional power grab by the government. It completes the abolition of every alternative political structure in Ireland that might challenge the government's complete control of the Dáil through the Whip system, which leaves Ireland in the hands of, essentially, the Cabinet - and the whip hand in the Cabinet is in turn held by just two posts, by virtue of the Taoiseach's powers of appointment and the MoF's powers of finance. Ireland is essentially a duumvirate - run, in any critical moment, by two people - as we saw with the bank guarantee.

[ibis]

Thanks Ibis - I accept that what you say and agree oversight of all policy would be a fine start.

As you say this would be difficult as they are not answerable to national bodies, but perhaps arising out of their respect to and esteem for democracy and accountability these good people could offer or be otherwise persuaded to invest a quantum of their time and opinions, regulary to a reformed Seanad. While I agree MEPs are answerable to their electorates, they are not highly visible, and such Seanad interviews may help connect the people more with their MEPs and the EU parliament.

Make the MEPs automatically Senators.

[Toland]

I have yet to be convinced of its use other than as a vehicle young, up-and-comers and/or retirement home for the superannuated.

How does it or could it legitimately represent anyone not already represented in the Dáil?

What's its record in managing to get good legislation on the statute books that wouldn't have got on the books without it? And how can that record be democratically improved?

I'm genuinely open to persuasion.

[Disillusioned democrat]

I would ideally favour reform, but I'm old and cynical enough now to realise our "leaders" don't do reform, only obfuscation, confustion and even more cloudy accountability.

The Seanad is a joke and an expensive, self-serving and useless one at that....but without the punchline that makes it worth it.

Ideally the Seanad should be a policy think tank, one step removed from the murky goings on of the Dail and it's continual need for re-elections, parish pump politics and gombeenism, and there to challenge the short-term and politically expedient activities of the TDs and government.

It should be made up of peoples' representatives across a broad range of interest groups - the Chief Scout, the President of the IFA, the President of the Teachers Unions, the CEO of the ESB, etc., the and have NO pay/perks other than genuine expenses.

[Tin Foil Hat]

I'd prefer reform.
Two major bees in my bonnet are
a) The Taoiseachs nominees. Anyone who has been rejected by the voters in a recent election (min 5 years) should be barred from receiving one of these.
b) The elitism. Seanead elections should be open to every registered voter.

But seeing as this won't happen then I'd happily abolish it.

[Gimpanzee]

Unfortunately, I'd see it as more likely that a unicameral Oireachtas would find itself quite sufficient, thanks.

There's definitely that danger, but it equally applies to reform of the seanad. There is no incentive for the Dáil to back reform of the Seanad that would lessen it's dominance.