Reforming the Senate

I came up with this idea when I was in the shower, so feel free to knock or support it. A lot of people are talking about the Senate, and whether or not it should be abolished or be made more democratic.
We already have a democratic house - The Dail - so how about this for a suggestion -
Members of the Senate are no longer elected by the universities or installed by political appointment. Instead people who have achieved in business, who are recognised intellectuals in education and arts, who are the top spokespeople for charity, our top medical people and journalists etc are invited to do a term in the Senate. It could be like Jury Duty - and considered a high honour. Of course you would be free to refuse, but you would have to refuse in public, and would not be invited to be a Senator again.
Perhaps the idea is naive. I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there.
It would facilitate the separation of powers, which is a necessity in a democracy. And it would supplement the democratic will of the Dail with knowledgeable opinion, which would hopefully lead to better decision making and a clearer vision of what we want our country to be.
What do ye think?
(Likelyhood of this happening - close to zero - but you can't blame a guy for trying)

Members of the Senate are no longer elected by the universities or installed by political appointment. Instead people who have achieved in business, who are recognised intellectuals in education and arts, who are the top spokespeople for charity, our top medical people and journalists etc are invited to do a term in the Senate. It could be like Jury Duty - and considered a high honour. Of course you would be free to refuse, but you would have to refuse in public, and would not be invited to be a Senator again.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Senate needs reform, however, once you have public representatives deciding who is in it, you will end up with it being used as a political tool. The problem is who decides who has "achieved in business" - the current bunch of business high fliers in the Senate is as follows - (have any ever run a business?).

http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=1&HouseNum=23&ConstID=207&disp=mem

The current bunch of "recognised intellectuals in education and arts" is as follows:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=1&HouseNum=23&ConstID=204&disp=mem

In my opinion, the only section of the Senate that operates correctly are the third level Senators. Most are independent, most are accomplished and they are generally the most constructive parliamentarians in either house.

I have a view that the Senate needs to exist, but with eligibility to both vote and stand being based on some meritocratic principals. I think the number of third level seats should be expanded to include all universities. This is fair and meritocratic. I'm open to suggestion as to the rest of the seats provided that it is clear and meritocratic. You should have to earn your senate vote.

The only policital appointees I would allow are a maximum of 2 appointed by the Taoiseach and they can only be appointed on condition that they are also appointed as Ministers i.e. to reflect the Constitional provision that the Taoiseach should appoint two experts as Ministers in each cabinet.

shnaek said:

Members of the Senate are no longer elected by the universities or installed by political appointment. Instead people who have achieved in business, who are recognised intellectuals in education and arts, who are the top spokespeople for charity, our top medical people and journalists etc are invited to do a term in the Senate. )

Click to expand...

So if this was in place at the last election, leading business figures such as David Drum, Sean Fitzpatrick and Michael Fingleton could have been "invited".?

What's the difference between a Taoiseach's nomination and an invitation?

Mpsox said:

So if this was in place at the last election, leading business figures such as David Drum, Sean Fitzpatrick and Michael Fingleton could have been "invited".?

Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of Michael O'Leary, Dennis O'Brien, Dermot Desmond etc. I hadn't thought of the heads of banks as being business figures. It would need some thought as to what criteria would be applied. Perhaps csirl's suggestion above about the colleges is a better idea.

Mpsox said:

What's the difference between a Taoiseach's nomination and an invitation?

Click to expand...

The invitation would not be the Taoiseach's prerogative. Who's prerogative would it be? I don't know. Any suggestions?

The idea stemmed from the desire to have something more than short term populism deciding our collective destiny.

shnaek said:

The invitation would not be the Taoiseach's prerogative. Who's prerogative would it be? I don't know. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

Why not have a "the Senate's got Talent" show, and we could all text in our votes?


Seriouslly, I'd love to see a representative for emigrants somewhere in there. As for who would nominate them, perhaps instead of the Taoiseach, the leaders of the main political parties put a list together with the proviso that the nominations cannot be failed TDs or aspiring councilers

shnaek said:

I was thinking more along the lines of Michael O'Leary, Dennis O'Brien, Dermot Desmond etc. .

Click to expand...

So you want the guy who lies in letters to Ministers and refuses to give consumers their legal rights, the guy who walks away from business deals without paying his debts ([broken link removed]) and the guy who bankrolled the Haughey family and was right in the middle of the Telecom/Johnson Mooney O'Brien site scandal instead?

Give me Senator Donie Cassidy any day!

An unelected house or one elected and appointed by a limited number of people, should never be able to overturn the decisions of the Dáil.