More duplicity
I got another of those damned “Government Information Booklets” yesterday.
We have a referendum coming up the week after next and we are supposed to vote on whether or not to abolish the Seanad [Senate, Upper House, call it what you will] along with some change to the courts system.
So far, the arguments for the abolition of the Seanad run along the lines –
- It costs a lot of money.
- Jobs for the boys.
- It’s irrelevant.
We have heard precious little as to why it shouldn’t be abolished. Seeing as all the main political parties are urging abolition, that’s not surprising.
I shall be voting No.
Why?
The answer is simple – because the gubmint want me to vote Yes.
It pains me to vote No as I would love to see that anti-smoker fascist Crown turfed out on his ear but sacrifices have to be made. However I have learned over the years never to trust a single word from any of our politicians. If they told me that today was Wednesday, I would seriously go and check a calendar. When they tell me the financial situation is stabilising, I know we are in deep shit. They told me the EU would be good for us – need I say more?
When the gubmint urges a Yes vote, I immediately seek out a reason, and the reason is plain to see – it gives them more power. Not much more power I grant, but currently the Seanad is there to provide some notion of checks and balances. In my book, the Seanad should not only be kept, but strengthened.
On the face of it, they are urging Yes in order to save money. The sheeple of course will fall for this as it strikes a chord, but it really is all about power. If it were purely a question of money I can guarantee I could save them ten times, if not a hundred times as much by simply going through the books and eradication all those fucking gubmint departments and qangos that do sweet fuck all except produce reports, lobby the gubmint itself and generally do little more than keep seats warm. Give me a red pencil and I can promise I could produce savings of hundreds of millions per year, if not thousands.
I haven’t decided on the Courts bit yet.
I’m negotiating.
I’ll vote Yes if they promise to be more lenient with me next time.
I agree with you that the Seanad should be retained.
Maybe some form of change/reorganization is needed but for sure we need the "checks and balances" that you mention.
The UK has two houses, as does the US of A and I'm 100% convinced that we need two as well.
The Seanad should have a lot more in the way of teeth. They should also change the method of appointment to ensure it's not just a cushy place for TDs' pals or failed TDs.
Too bloody right you need to retain a second house. Without it those bastards will just go on a rampage of vanity legislation.
The worst thing that ever happened to the UK was when Bliar and his cronies 'reformed' the House of Lords. I don't care how archaic the concept of hereditary peers is, or how 'unfair' the system appeared to be; it worked, and worked a damn site better than it has since they packed it with political appointees. Because the great strength of the HoL as it used to be was that the incumbents were there out of a sense of duty to their country, not so they could feather their nests or push a political agenda. Plus, as landowners, they were hands-on businessmen who were in touch with the realities of life to a far greater extent than the popinjay politicians.
Bloody socialists. They can't resist meddling.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The way it's going here at the moment is that the Seanad are they only representative of The People. The rest of them only represent Brussels. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the EU wasn't behind this move somewhere.
In other news…
When Irish people do what their government won't
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/08/when-people-do-what-their-goverment-wont/
Fair play to Michael Smith.
It comes as no surprise that there hasn't been a single mention of this in the mainstream meeja. It will also come as no surprise that he will get nowhere, I can guarantee. They will try every trick in the book, from bringing in retrospective laws, through discrediting Smith to dragging the whole affair out so he can't afford to go any further
What does the Guvbumf slipped through your letterbox say about this Court of Appeal thingummy anyway?
You can read the booklet all about both referendums [referenda?] here.
Right. I'd vote yes to the establishment of a Court of Appeal. It will speed things up in the court system, which proceeds at a snailpace the higher you go. The high cost of law won't change as a result of this new departure, unfortunately.
As for the Senate I'd vote no – but feel the upper house needs to change in the way the members are elected and in the powers of the Senate. It should be allowed to be more active in initiating legislation.
Wise thing voting no. Never attempt to replace the established way of doing things unless you damn well know what's going to replace it.