We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE LATEST OPINION poll on the abolition of the Seanad shows that 64 per cent would be in favour of doing away with the upper house, with 36 per cent against — once ‘undecideds’ are excluded.
However, if ‘don’t knows’ are counted, the figures break down as: 37 per cent in favour of abolition, 20 per cent for retention, and 32 per cent still to make up their minds.
The Sunday Independent/Millward Brown survey was carried out between the 13th and 25th of September among a sample of just under a thousand voters.
One in ten people said they would not vote in the referendum on 4 October.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
VOTE NO! The government are pulling the wool over people’s eyes and giving themselves more power to screw the people in return for a minuscule saving in the bigger scheme of things.
It annoys me when people refuse to vote regardless of the government or the topic of the vote. It’s your democratic right to vote there is people fighting all over the world to do what we’re going to do Friday.
And secondly the type of people that don’t vote are the very type that complain about the outcome .
Having a right to vote also means having the right not to vote. Why should I vote for some one or some issue I don’t believe in just because I can. I am very proud of our ancestors for giving me the choice.
64% for, 36% against once the ‘undecideds’ are excluded.
Terrible journalism, first up, 64 + 36 = 100, how many ‘undecideds’ are there?
Do we have an electorate of 150%?
Secondly, ‘undecideds’ doesn’t exist in the English language, terrible article.
finbarr,
‘ Why should I vote for some one or some issue I don’t believe in just because I can’
typical celtic tiger attitude me, me, me, this vote is bigger than you, it’s about the future of people and democracy.
Get off your greedy self absorbed lazy fat ass and help yhe people around you by voting no, you knob.
Hey mate I’m actually talking about the bigger picture of voting. I won’t just vote for a person because its the best of a bad lot. And I can’t vote in this referrendom because I had to emigrate to get a job and won’t make it home. Cheers
In relation to the percentages.
Say you ask 100 people the question and 32 said yes, 45 says i don’t no and 23 says no.
When they exclude the i don’t knows. Then rather out of 100 they do it out of 55,
So the yes side now becomes 58% and the no side goes to 42%
I am sure that is how they do it but if i am wrong please let me know.
Then Vote No I’m not asking to vote for something you don’t believe in then.
or vote yes. if you nothing what difference does it make what way you vote. might as well close your eyes and see what happens
steven
so by putting the undecided votes aside, the journal has created a new 100%.
in othe words, say 25% are undecided, the journal casts them aside and makes the remaining 75% the new 100%.
this is black propaganda.
Vote No !! Unless you want to give these idiots more power!
What power?
the power to ram bills through without accountability reg,
Joe name one bill this government or the last one didn’t ran through even though we have a Seanad now?
They might delay a bill so they can agree with their master but they have done nothing whatsoever for the Irish people except waste tax payers money.
Get rid ASAP
They can do that anyway Joe. The Seanad is useless. Get rid.
1 of the changes is to stop the President from referring certain bills to the people. All the other changes seem to be that by removing the Seanad, the percentage to refer agree or refer stuff onwards from the Dail will be changed. This 1 is a big deal for me. I don’t know why they don’t change it also to a certain percentage of the Dail in the absence of the Seanad. This is indicated in the referendum commission booklet that every house got. That alone is reason enough for me to vote No.
What do you mean, what power, Reg? Are you saying the government of Ireland have no power as it is now?
What a corrupt story. Denis o briens irish independent should be reported for bringing out such a warped storyline. 64% in favour. …when the actual figure is well below 40%.when have we ever had the don’t knows excluded from a poll in order to say that the majority are in favour of something? This reminds me of the woman on the afternoon show doing a property slot telling us it was great value for an ex council house in athea co limerick to be asking for €300k….in 2011 :0.
Why do people assume abolishing the seanad will magically fix the political system? What makes a system work more efficiently is reforming it, fixing it, fine-tuning it – not just hacking off the bits that aren’t functioning so well. If your car has a flat tyre, is it going to run better if you take the wheel off and throw it away… or if you fix the puncture?
If you’re angry at the Seanad for not doing its job to check and balance the Dáil, why would you abolish any possibility of a *better* (or any) check and balance to the Dáil? Surely that’s shooting yourself in the foot? You’re still left with an unchecked Dáil, and all you’ve done is hobbled your options to improve that situation.
Yes campaigners are calling for abolition because the Seanad is undemocratic. Well, not having a 2nd chamber is to grant absolute power of government to the Dáil. That’s a weakening, not a strengthening, of democracy. If you want a more democratic system, reform the Seanad – don’t abolish it.
It seems to me that most of the outcomes wanted by people saying they’ll vote Yes would actually be better achieved by voting No.
Take a longer-term view, not just a short-term knee-jerk reaction.Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater…
Well said Damien, I hope people take heed and vote no!!
Damien, I agree with your common sense and logic.
The proposed abolition of the Senate is just a ploy and is to distract from other issues.
The Senate needs a system of universal suffrage for all Irish citizens and to get rid of the system of Taoiseach’s nominees but the Senate can be reformed and that reform could be part of designing a system of politics which is fit for purpose.
I am not going to vote in the Referendum. Ireland is no longer a functioning democracy. This exercise is a farce.
Seanad is just a talk shop. They had no power to do anything other than delay a proposed bill. 75 years of doing nothing usefull and only now reform is being discussed and we aren’t voting on reform. Its not an option.
Reform might not be an option on the ballot paper, but since there is little appetite for retaining the Seanad in its current form, a No vote is a de facto vote for reform. Voting yes is to permanently and unnecessarily kill off any possibility of that option.
As I said, shooting yourself in the foot.
As for the much touted cliché that the Seanad can do “nothing but delay” legislation – that ignores the very useful purpose of delaying legislation: to debate it more fully, to allow more time for amendments and refinements – in other words to improve the legislation. The whole “powerless, useless, toothless Seanad” argument is a fallacy.
And to back up Damien’s point, the current Seanad has made over 500 amendments to legislation in the last 2 and a half years. This was legislation “debated” and “scrutinised” by our elected representatives, yet still needed another 60 people to go through it to be fixed.
Voting yes on Friday is saying that you think our TDs are competent and qualified to do this on their own.
The good thing about the Seanad, especially if it could be reformed properly, is that you can get people with expertise in finance, education, farming etc, to take a closer look at bills and refine them. The TD’s don’t generally have that expertise.
The out come will depend on the turnout.It will probably the middle age to the elderly that will bother to vote.
I’m voting no,
the thoughts of these wasters getting pensions I pay for, for the rest of their life really gets to me.
They have never once stood up to the government, never once put the Irish people before their own greed.
And for all the good people that came through the Seanad they would have come through anyway.
Get rip and don’t pay them off either.
Then I think you mean you’re voting Yes?
People need to be careful with their “yes or nos”. Yes to abolish Seanad, no to retain.
Maybe the journal would make this crystal clear?
Sorry that should be I’m voting yes.
Get rid ASAP
@Chris,, maybe your right,, maybe wrong,, but what eirks me is people dont know the facts,, for one is that if it is abolished a new committee will be set up to replace the Seanad with its members being paid and getting pensions from it,, where are the savings that they promised you, this is a power grab and democracy is the loser here, it needs to be reformed not abolished
They won’t get pensions until they reach retirement age. This was changed a few years ago for politicians.
oh so you admit it then Reg, its still money spent no matter what way you look at it
Admit what Joe? Simply stating a fact.
Is that not only for new politicians?
Chris, they’ll get the pensions anyway, no matter what you vote. Just think about what you’re doing if you vote to get rid of the Seanad – you’re leaving the Dáil to do whatever they want with no one to stop them or question them. Do you really want that?
Doubt that very much. I think there will be a very small turmout .
Hopefully people will wake up and get rid of this joke once and for all.
I’m voting no but either way I hope there is a good turnout.
Enola,
It’s a referendum, not a General Election. You’ll get your chance then.
It might be a joke as it is, Enola, but I am seriously worried about the idea of the Dáil having free rein to do whatever it wants. There is no plan in place to have any kind of checks or balances to stop the government making laws, and I find that a scary prospect.
Can’t believe anyone would want to keep handing out free money to these freeloaders. A joke institution inhabited by joke people!
That’s why it badly needs to be reformed. But getting rid of it altogether is a one way road going in the direction away from democracy
Democracy and Ireland! What’s all that about?
Democracy from a bunch who don’t stand before the people?
The standing government appoint some
And any who are elected are done so by the so call elite?
The people elect the government let them govern.
people dont know the facts,, for one is that if it is abolished a new committee will be set up to replace the Seanad with its members being paid and getting pensions from it,, where are the savings that they promised you, this is a power grab and democracy is the loser here, it needs to be reformed not abolished
Chris, only 6 senators are elected by the “elite”. The remainder are either selected by the Taoiseach, or elected by other elected officials. The election of most senators is as democratic as the election of the Taoiseach.
So where does my polling card go to?
It doesn’t go to the address of the property I pay property tax on, that’s the same address as I paid a social charge on last year, the same address as I paid thousands of euros for stamp duty.
Every single one of these parasites are not elected by the people of Ireland.
Democracy? Don’t kid yourself
If I was an undecided voter on Referendum day on the question of whether the Seanad should got or stay I would err on the safe side and vote NO. The Seanad has been an integral part of the Houses of the Oireachtas from the beginning. It was formed for good reason. No sustainable argument has been put forward for its abolition. The only repeated main mantra, from Government side, as an argument in favor of Seanad abolition is cost. A majority of commentators believe that figures trotted out in relation to the so called likely cost savings are hugely exaggerated and that any net saving will be very small indeed. What we face on 4th October is the prospect of political vandalism if the continued existence of the Seanad is rejected. Undecided voters can stop this. If you are an undecided voter then NO is a good option on 4th October.
What I don’t understand, Frank, is why the government won’t consider reform. I’ve heard Kenny and others say that they can’t reform it because it’s been talked about before and has never happened. So why can’t they reform it? Why the hurry to abolish it? What is the agenda?
It seems to me like they want a free rein to do whatever they want without anyone calling them to account. They haven’t made any suggestion as to what they would put in its place to create checks and balances. That worries me. And I certainly won’t be a part in changing our entire democratic system without knowing what’s supposed to come after it.
I’m not going to try to convince anyone to vote one way or the other, all I can say is that it is so important to vote this Friday. When it comes to a general election you may not agree with anyone who is running so why vote, but when it comes to a vote on our constitution, it think it is very important. When someone gets elected if they do a bad job then you can change your mind at the next election, but when it comes to a referendum you don’t get a chance to change your mind in a few years. However don’t vote because you think we may save some money, or because you don’t like the government. Find out what it’s about and then make your choice. If you don’t know what you are going to change, then you must vote no. You don’t change something unless you know what you are changing it to. So please read up on what this will change and if you think a yes is the right vote then vote yes, but if you are undecided or think a no vote is correct then vote no. Just please vote. Thanks for reading.
Alan, I am not voting in this farce of a referendum. Ireland is not a real democracy. Representative democracy has failed.
Referenda should emanate from popular calls from the people, not from a political party engaged in stunts.
Politics is Ireland is dysfunctional and unfit for purpose.
It will be the first time in my life not to vote since I was eligible to vote. I voted once when extremely ill and out of a passionate wish to vote.
I am done with politics. This proposal is a pure farce.
Peter, if that is how you feel then it seems that a no vote is what you should be doing. And from what you are saying it is more important than ever to vote.
there is no doubt the seanad needs to be reformed but i do i agree with the 64% in favour…..hell no! even if you read other threads on the journal.ie it is clear that the NO vote is gaining and agreed these are opinions aired online….but talking to people the fact that lillylivered incapable KENNY is not going to debate it on TV really has impacted people and especially the young vote …..while agreed its not the ideal situation/opportunity it will give this crowd the message that this government and especially KENNY, SHATTER, NOONAN,etc that we have had a enough of their puppet actions and cuts on the ordinary people are not working…..those in government need to LEAD and this would mean all of them at least cut their salaries by 50% and agree to cut their own pensions , this might help people to restore faith, will this happen NO of course it will not !
Ann, I think you’re missing something very important there, the journal comments section is not reflective of the country’s opinion in general. Thank Jeebus.
@my views, read what i wrote again!
This is insane-do you want the political party that you may NOT have voted for to make decisions with no one watching over their shoulder. Do you want all decisions to be made for POLITICAL reasons and NOT for the actual good of the country. Do you actually trust the politicians?
The Seanad is not perfect. It needs reform. But when it’s gone, it’s GONE. Bringing it back from nothing when we realise we actually need it, is much harder, than making changes to where it is today. Haven’t we learned that from the trams???
Your decision should NOT be about money.
The Government’s argument for a yes side isn’t convincing.
I think Enda know what he’s doing putting Richard Bruton in charge of the yes campaign. It will probably get a ‘No’ vote and all the flack will be directed at him. Payback for the leadership challenge in 2010.
I was voting no until I heard Senator David Norris on Ray D’Arcy last week (there is a podcast). This campaign is so corrupt. Don’t let the supposed monies we are going to save influence you – be weary ‘no’ voters. As for those who can and won’t vote – your opinion here has no weight, just as it won’t in the upcoming referendum.
Oooops I meant, I was voting yes and that yes voters be weary! Jeez no wonder people who are uninformed are so confused
That was the most informed interview I’ve heard on the subject. Well worth digging out, it’s changed my mind.
They could use the empty chamber as a methadone clinic or dole office. That would get the attention of the tds to solve these problems.
’64% in favour, 34% against once undecided are excluded’.
Nothing wrong with my basic arithmetic, 64 + 36 = 100, so how many ‘undecideds’ are there?
64% is a bullshit number, i’m sure the head of propaganda said ‘print that 44% are in favour’ but this journalist wanted to please the master and printed that 64% are in favour of abolition.
The key phrase is “once undecideds are excluded”. In other words, undecideds = 0% because you’re looking only at people who expressed an opinion one way or the other.
It’s common practice for papers to exclude don’t knows/undecideds in polls. After all, referendum results are only based on those who say yes or no, so polls naturally follow the same pattern.
Yep, you can’t argue with that statistical analysis.
However, it’s important to point out that, typically, a significant majority of undecideds who turn out on referendum day vote No.
It’s pretty common to see a 2:1 split among undecideds in favour of the No side.
The logic seems to be that if you don’t know, it’s safer to vote no and preserve the status quo rather than voting in favour of a change you don’t fully understand the consequences of.
So, to keep the figures simple, if you have 30 undecided voters, all of whom turn out in referendum day, it’s a fair assumption that 20 of them will vote no.
The Government are clearly targeting Tabloid readers who don’t understand the functionality of the Oireachtas. A very clear attempt at increasing their own power.
I shall be voting no on this one. Hopefully it will lead to reform. I don’t buy the governments arguments here.. And I’m quite puzzled by Sinn Fein backing the Yes side. Weird
The explanation for Sinn Fein backing the Yes side is simple: they only have three people there and very limited prospects for getting any more in. Abolishing the Seanad would mean a relative decrease in Oireachtas representation for Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour and a relative increase for Sinn Fein.
Their official position is that it’s an “affront to democracy”.
And, fair enough, in its current form, it is. But that’s not why they’re in favour of abolishing it. Murdering innocent civilians is an “affront to democracy” aswell, but they seem to have less of an issue with that.
Thank god can’t wait till this club is closed for good, throw back to imperialism
One in four are missing when it comes to crucial votes , get rid they are only interested in what they get from it. When do they ever not indorse government policies, never, spend the 20 million on services to those in greater need, I suppose that would never happen either.
The Seanad has never done much and most senators treat it as such. Even if it did have power would that be good? We elect a gov to run the country through the Dail. Why would we then want another layer in the senate blocking bills because they feel like it. Look at the mess in America where even though OBama is in power he can’t put bills through which could end up closing down public services. We elected a Dail and though I don’t agree with everything the gov are doing so be it.
The Senate is there to debate and recommend changes to proposed legislation in it feels necessary. It is , or should be , a “vetting” instrument before passing bills to the president for signing. If it doesn’t work properly , fix it . To abolish it is taking away alternative voice in the legislative process. It is reducing the power of democracy and allowing this government , who have a powerful majority , to control the legislative even more then they already do…Effectively giving an already powerful government more power…Is that a good thing..?
If you choose not to vote, don’t bore me with your opinions or excuses. They’re not valid. If you can’t vote for whatever reason, then fair enough. Some people here need to get over themselves. This is about OUR constitution, not some politician or political party you don’t like. It’s important. I’m voting no. Checks and measures need to be in place. The Seanad absolutely needs reforming. Voting yes removes that opportunity to reform it. Foward thinking is needed here. Not sulking.
Looking at the red thumbs on here it looks like the majority of the journal readers are in favour of retention.
Shut it down and fcuk the lot if them out on the sponging useless arses, no more retirement home for failed politicians, if they don’t get elected, let them Go out and get a real Job like the rest of us, then get hammered with tax’s and charges, welcome To our world, sounds fair to me
How much would be saved if the Senate was maintained but the Senators were only paid minimum wage for the hours they “worked”?
Just askin’.
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say