Madam, – It is ironic that Senator Fiona O’Malley (October 20th) should accuse Enda Kenny of populism. The demise of the Progressive Democrats was probably precipitated more than anything else by their unconditional support, through successive administrations, of the greatest populist of all, Bertie Ahern.
The Senator owes her present position to the power of the Taoiseach to appoint 11 members to the Seanad. The abuse of this power for narrow party political reasons is one of the main factors contributing to the reduction of the Seanad to a superfluous reflection of the factional politics of the Dáil, and the ad hominem content of Senator O’Malley’s comments illustrates this point perfectly. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Enda Kenny has called for the abolition of the Seanad.
This is a very radical and dramatic proposal that will undoubtedly generate a lot of debate.
The Fine Gael leader in the Seanad, Frances Fitzgerald, is fully supporting Mr Kenny’s plan.
In fairness to Senator Fitzgerald, she is being consistent, given that she has stood for the Dáil in every general election since 1992.
There are some commentators who are sceptical about the seriousness of Enda Kenny’s proposal. They suggest it’s merely a ploy to get attention and maintain his party’s lead in the polls.
Now if Mr Kenny wishes to refute the sceptics, there is one way he could demonstrate this and prove that he is committed to serious reform. If the abolition of the Seanad becomes Fine Gael policy, then Mr Kenny should ask the current 15 Fine Gael members of the Seanad to resign their seats immediately.
He wouldn’t have to wait for a general election or a referendum – the withdrawal of the main Opposition party would effectively end the Seanad.
If it is irrelevant, as he claims, then it shouldn’t matter if his members are no longer there.
Mr Kenny has cited the cost of the Seanad as one reason why it should be abolished. Well, the resignation of 15 Senators would be a significant saving for the taxpayer, At €70,000 a year per Senator, that would work out at a saving of over a million euro – and that’s not including expenses.
Were Enda Kenny and Fine Gael to take this course of action, it would be a true act of patriotism. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Enda Kenny is right about abolishing the Seanad. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money and it’s about time that we got rid of an almost 19th-century system of doing politics and brought in a 21st-century system that delivers more for the taxpayer.
His proposed list system for 20 TDs would be a good way to incorporate some of the greatest minds of Irish society into the political arena of Dáil Éireann, giving them a greater role in implementing change and reform.
The Seanad’s role has been systematically diminished and demoralised by lacklustre leadership and political cronyism. It’s time for its formal demise. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The resurrection of the perennial issue of the abolition of the Senate may provide an opportunity for some timely creative thinking.
Why not reform the entirety of the way we manage our affairs?
Fifty senators, directly elected, would provide the necessary checks and balances on a maximum of 50 directly elected members of the Dáil.
The Senators, as befits wise and noble elders of our society, would be unsalaried, but would receive a modest allowance to cover expenses – perhaps €20,000 annually. They would continue to initiate or debate and amend legislation. The members of the Dáil – at 50 in number – would suffice to render adequate representation to the citizens of the State.
Some may raise the objection that out of this number one would hardly manage to match the present number of Ministers, Ministers of State and committee chairpersons. This surely leads us on to looking for a thorough shake-up at this level too. Suppose all this reform meant that there were Government departments left without sufficient political overlords; would we have to decrease the number of departments? Why not?
Perhaps this process of reform might lead even further to examining the State-sponsored bodies.
Now we are getting into the realms of fantasy. Or are we? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – John Kennedy’s letter (October 20th) explaining the byzantine process for Seanad Éireann byelections surely damns this anachronism to oblivion. –
Yours, etc,
Madam, – Enda Kenny’s ambition to become the next taoiseach knows no bounds. As your editorial (October 20th) rightly points out, he has gone from being a proponent of reform of the Seanad to an outright abolitionist without first informing his parliamentary party colleagues.
His actions are similar to those of former taoiseach John A Costello, who took the Republic out of the Commonwealth in a fit of pique.
This rash decision calls into question Mr Kenny’s fitness to be a leader at a time of national crisis.
In the current economic climate, there is a “utilitarian” wave of popular support for ridding Ireland of “excess public expenditure”; the Seanad, which has a byzantine electoral system and is far from being a truly representative institution, seems a likely candidate for cost cutting. Yet, even though it rarely acts as a check on the Dáil, it does offer a platform for individual talents to flourish. While it may be a rest home for failed politicians, it has also been a kindergarden for future TDs.
Tony Blair tampered with the British constitution and abolished the hereditary peers in the upper house; in their place the life peers who succeeded them have often acted less as a check on the party in power than a mere rubber stamp for legislation from the lower house. Nor does it seem that there has been a noticeable improvement in the standard of debate.
There are, at present, many more urgent issues facing the Irish electorate than abolishing the Seanad. Irish banking is in urgent need of reform, as well as how scarce resources can be better utilised in providing an equitable educational and health service for all sectors of the population. The teaching profession is a virtual closed shop with outdated and restrictive work practises; as a former teacher, Mr Kenny is unusually mute on this particular issue, while he bangs on about areas outside his level of competence. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The Seanad has long passed it’s sell-by date and no amount of reform will make this redundant and undemocratic upper house pertinent and relevant to the times we live in.
The quicker it goes the better, so that the real business of reforming the lower house can get under way. – Yours, etc,