Labour in the Seanad. Keen to stay there too, so it would seem. June 26, 2012
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
Niamh Connolly writes in the SBP about those hardy souls in the Seanad representing the Labour Party who have begun to campaign (and more – right up to voting – albeit not directly on the issue) against abolition. According to Connolly ‘They are also insisting that there is “an understanding” with party leader Eamon Gilmore that they have a free vote on the Seanad’s future’. That seems mighty odd to me though in fairness the LP was always more muted on the issue of abolition and according to the SBP sought ‘reform’ during the election.
The problem is that this impacts with the Coalition’s policy and more directly FG’s outright bid to abolish the chamber.
In fairness they do have a point in relation to the bizarre approach by the Coalition not to allow the Seanad to feature in the constitutional convention. To omit it is to constrain the convention from full engagement with the currently existing Constitution. And that’s the Constitution we’ve got as distinct from the one FG or the LP or whoever might like.
The following should be interesting.
Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and independent nominees oppose its abolition, as do other senators, such as businessman Feargal Quinn. Labour senator Ivana Bacik is speaking in UCD next week to oppose its abolition. This leaves the government exposed in relation to any votes on the Seanad abolishing itself.
That’s quite a wide array of forces and one wonders if they were brought to bear seriously upon the matter would they be likely to influence public opinion. As noted last week it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that were the issue put to a referendum tomorrow it would see the Seanad sail out of existence. But it won’t be put to a vote tomorrow and there are those who will fight the good fight to see its retention – though presumably in a radically different form.
I’m with the Blueshirts on this one, at least over this bunch, who an all too clear vested interest in keeping the useless talking shop. The Seanad serves no useful purpose and should be abolished. I’m against bicameral legislatures in principle and against entirely undemocratic ones even more.
Personal views aside though, I think that there is very, very little chance of any coalition of Senators, political parties and the great and the good convincing people to vote for retention if the abolition option is eventually put to the vote. For much the same reason that the (actually undemocratic and regressive, unlike Seanad abolition) measures to reduce the number of TDs will be popular.
They will do well avoid replicating the judge’s disastrous PR campaign last year. While they have the freedom to do so I have concern about the ability to put forward serious argument with coming across as completely selfserving.
And as much as I will enjoy watching them sweat, the relish that some TDs are taking in dangling Senators over the cliff doesn’t sit well. There is case that many of them are far more redundant then the upper house as an institution.
I’m not sure that there really is that much relish. The career politician TD may look at the Senator with contempt, but he or she will be all too aware that the Seanad is centrally a sheltering place for career politicians who have suffered an unfortunate electoral setback. All of the main party TDs, bar those edging towards retirement or those with absolutely set in stone safe seats know that the Seanad might come in handy for them some day. That is, after all, its main function.
As far as a “save the Seanad” campaign goes, Senators have a dual problem:
1) They will automatically look self-interested.
2) There is a strongly, indiscriminately, “anti-politician” public sentiment at the moment and any measure which is seen to knock a few lumps out of a few politicians will be very popular. This is equally true for regressive measures like reducing the number of TDs as it is for progressive measures like reducing politicians pay.
In my view, if it ever actually gets to a public vote with an abolition option, the Senators are dead and buried. Their best chance of political survival is to come up with some kind of “reform” scheme which allows the government to look like its doing something, while keeping the option to abolish away from the electorate.
Mostly I agree Mark
But there are a lot of senators who (much like the technical group) will be able to play the “anti-politician” public sentiment, turning it into an “anti everybody but me because I’m on your side” sentiment.
Despiet his result in the presidentials, people probably want Norris to be in something like the Seanad – much more than they want most TDs to keep their jobs!
There’s an important democratic argument against the seanad (certainly in its present form), but don’t underestimate the difficulties in winning a vote to abolish it – particularly if it turns into a vote against an unpopular government trying to remove an element of scrutiny over their work.
That last point is an important one.
There is in my view a reasonable chance that no abolish choice will be given to the public. And if one is, the government may well be so unpopular at this point that they would find it difficult to win a referendum on sunshine.
Those are the chances the Senators have for survival.
Did someody say abolish the Seanad? Then it must be time again for me to propose not abolishing it but converting it into a citizens’ jury.
Previously in comments on CLR (here and here)
The original idea, in relation to the House of Lords, was by Harry Brighouse and Erik Olin Wright (three-page pdf here)