The Government in the South will hold a referendum on abolishing the Seanad in October. Despite the cost and unusual democratic make, doesn’t a democracy require a second house to oversee the government? The UK is trying to reform its second house, but got stuck with the definition of its role. Do you think there should be a second house and if so with what functions?
Comment
Do we really trust our governments enough to not have a ‘stay’ on their powers? That’s the problem, isn’t it? If we knew they wouldn’t get the run of themselves there would be no problem, would there? The difficulty is that no-one in their right mind would let Michael (let’s bring back O’ levels) Gove loose to his own whims and you’d have to be totally off your head to let your government introduce a bedroom tax! (OMG! That actually happened, didn’t it? It’s not a bad dream after all!)
So we do need something. We all know that. But do we need a House full of inherited peers and former professional politicians? More politicians? Are we crazy?
The problem is that no-one has come up with a way of providing us with what we want: a House where reasonable people with expertise in a variety of domains can work together to rein in our often over ambitious, under or uninformed and outrageously skewed politicians. Any ideas Naomi?
No comments:
Post a Comment