More duplicity — 10 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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. 

    • 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

      • 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.

  3. 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.

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting