Sir, – Enda Kenny (Opinion, September 20th) is drawing the wrong lessons from a comparison of the Irish parliamentary structure with that of Denmark, Norway and Finland. It is true that these are of comparable population size, and have unicameral parliaments with 175-200 representatives, only slightly larger than the Dáil. But in all three countries, political power and economic responsibility is much less concentrated in the central parliament. Subnational governments account for 34 per cent of public expenditure in Norway, 40 per cent in Finland and 63 per cent in Denmark, compared with 11 per cent in Ireland, one of the lowest in the OECD. Local governments are also far more democratic than Irish councils. An Irish councillor serves an average of 4,800 people, a Danish councillor, 2,000 people, a Finnish councillor, 560, and a Norwegian councillor, 420.
If the Irish electorate considers that there are “too many politicians”, it is not because they are over-represented at local level, but because their representatives are given too little responsibility. If Mr Kenny had accompanied his proposal for Senate abolition with one that devolved more power and responsibility for taxation and expenditure to local councils, and increased rather than reduced local electoral representation, his claim to be serious about political reform would be more convincing. – Yours, etc,
TIMOTHY KING,
Shanganagh Terrace,
Killiney, Co Dublin.
Sir, – I arrived back in Ireland on Saturday to see a line of Fianna Fáil posters on the roadway advocating reform of the Senate. I admire the sense of Cork humour implicit in the new Fianna Fáil. Micheál Martin has been a TD for 24 years and a Minister for 14 years, so exactly where in the Dáil record can we find his advocacy on this matter? – Yours, etc,
T MURPHY,
Shamrock Drive,
Muskerry Estate,
Ballincollig, Co Cork.
Sir, – Now it is widely acknowledged that the €20 million “saving” that the abolition of the Seanad will bring about is a fabrication, could Fine Gael be guilty of electoral fraud, as it seems to be constantly making a misleading statement to the public in order to impact the outcome of a referendum? Maybe this is just acceptable in today’s Irish political culture. Here’s the new boss, same as the old boss, – Yours, etc,
COLM BERGIN,
Grand Canal Street,
Dublin.
Sir, – In all the confusion surrounding numbers in relation to the Seanad referendum one statistic stands out. Over 98 per cent of the population have no vote in deciding the composition of that body. However, as a county councillor I have five votes. How elitist is that? Sometimes no price can be put on equality and fairness and that’s why I am voting Yes. – Yours, etc,
Cllr MICHAEL O’DOWD,
Chord Road,
Drogheda, Co Louth.
Sir, – Your most erudite opinion former, Noel Whelan, seems to have been in the vicinity of a batch of "bad pints" on Thursday/Friday while researching his Saturday column which unfortunately has left him with a severe dose of Bilious Conspiracytheoryitis (Opinion, September 21st). The machinations into planning a referendum 10 days before a budget leads one to conclude that a secret cabal of Fastnet Rock non-nationals, Saharan turf-cutters, Antarctic Freezer engineers, etc, are intent on doing down his prospects of a demanding sinecure in an Oireachtas care home. It was all foretold in one phrase from Kevin Rafter's book. Oh! What cynicism, what treachery. What a bilious stomach! – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL SHEEHAN,
Perrier Drive,
Douglas, Co Cork.
A chara, – Am I hearing right? Am I being told that none of the overpaid number-crunchers in the civil service can tell us what exactly it costs to run the Seanad for a year? Is simple arithmetic beyond them? Are these the same people who are preparing the accounts on which the budget will be based? I fear I know the answer already. – Is mise,
STEPHEN FARRELLY,
Seafield Road East,
Clontarf, Dublin 3.
Sir, – Like Prof Kinsella (September 21st), I dislike the Fine Gael posters urging the abolition of the Seanad. However, it’s in a poster issued by the Labour Party that the Government’s real desired outcome is revealed.
"One People, One Parliament, One Vote"? – Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer, more like. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN TREACY,
Drumree, Co Meath.
Sir, – Like a high-maintenance lover about to be dumped, the Seanad and its supporters are suddenly in a panic, grasping at straws and telling us how wonderful they are.
And like any sensible person finding themselves in such a situation, if we want to find out how much we need them, the simple solution is to dump them.
If, as predicted, the sky falls in, it is not the end of the world: nobody is going to die. The Seanad can always be reconstituted if we discover we can’t bear to live without it. – Yours, etc,
NORMAN DAVIES,
Belton Terrace,
Bray, Co Wicklow.
Sir, – In the booklet on the dual referendum, no logical reason has been given for abolishing the Seanad. Instead the people are subjected to a political barrage from the Taoiseach and others with the Government’s usual unsubstantiated logic. For example: “the Seanad has no power”. If so, why not give it more? According to the Taoiseach the trouble with the Seanad is that it was not designed to be taken over by politicians. Let us then get rid of the political appointees. No government should be allowed to run a country without some form of control. – Yours, etc,
GRETCHEN THORNTON,
Delgany, Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Enough of these woolly arguments. Let’s focus on where our parliamentary problems, and the solution to them, lie. Time for backbench TDs to realise what every schoolboy knows, that they are animals with a backbone and spine who should stand upright. This is what needs to happen if they are to have a meaningful role in parliament.
I am not naive enough to think it will happen overnight, but there are more “rebels” now than ever before and the number is growing. To argue that the problems in the Dáil can be solved by reforming the Seanad makes about as much sense as saying that you should respond to the low BER rating of your house by insulating the garden shed! – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN CASSERLY,
Abbeybridge,
Waterfall, Nr Cork.
Sir, – In his response to my previous letter, Minister Alex White side-steps the reasons for his own U-turn on the abolition of the Seanad, and says the campaign should focus on “the issues of substance involved, rather than engage in endless accusations of U-turns and flip-flops (on either side).”
It would certainly suit the Labour Party if the public at large were to do as he suggests and ignore the statements they made in opposition. Thankfully it seems unlikely that many people would fall for that.
If he genuinely believes U-turns should not be the focus of the campaign, perhaps he perhaps he can explain why there are several press releases on the Labour Party website from various spokespeople criticising Fianna Fáil and others for their supposed U-turn on the issue? Is it the case that Labour can accuse other people of flip-flopping, but should be immune from the same kind of scrutiny it applies to others? – Yours, etc,
ERIC KEANE,
Ranelagh Avenue,
Ranelagh, Dublin 6.
Sir, – A low hanging poster at Leeson Street advises me that democracy is priceless and to vote No in the forthcoming referendum. Regrettably the priceless principle does not seem to extend to my eyesight if I bumped into the poster. While rubbing a sore temple, I had time to muse as to what precisely what aspect of democracy is jeopardised by abolishing a body largely elected by a club of fewer than 1,000 voters. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN HENEGHAN,
Parkmore Drive,
Terenure, Dublin 6W.