Senatorial Madness, Canadian Style

[dewline]

Taking a little time off from promoting comics to get just a tad political.

Take a look at what our Prime Minister's trying to push today.

Yeah, our Senate's been a patronage arrangement since almost-forever. So why do I get the feeling that putting an end to it is going to blow up in our nation's collective face, no matter how well-intended?

Opinions, anyone?

Comments

[madlycool.livejournal.com]

I think the Refor--- i mean, Conservatives, think Senators are supposed to represent provincial governments, but i don't think they're even supposed to represent provinces. They're selected FROM provinces, but are intended to represent the country as a whole, which is why they have no role in local advocacy, the way Members of the House of Commons do. They're supposed to be above partisan politics (moreso than MPs, anyway). If they become just another layer of politician running for office, we should just get rid of the Senate.

Ireland has more interesting ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Call them the New Conservatives. I do.

And we come back around to the original question...

[madlycool.livejournal.com]

I think it's more likely to provoke problems than fix any. Just what we need: the Bloc in the Senate.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

How many people are wondering right now if that probability isn't the whole point of doing this?

[madlycool.livejournal.com]

I always get the feeling that New Reformers (and neo-cons in general) imagine somehow the process is stacked against them, and if they 'reform' the Senate (or whatever institution), it will be dominated by themselves. As if, everyone elected Reform to the Commons, somehow people in Calgary wouldn't have to read French on cereal boxes.

I also get the feeling that right-wing Albertans imagine Alberta's wealth is the result of their holier-than-thou political beliefs and wise planning, and not an accident of geology.

Getting back to the Irish Idea...

[dewline.livejournal.com]

...looks interesting at first glance. I may want to do some further digging.

[ex-cath560.livejournal.com]

To a layman it sounds alot like what they did here with the Lords which is kind of double-edged

[dewline.livejournal.com]

As far as this layperson's concerned, that's exactly the issue. I'd be interested in further detail if you've a moment to borrow my pulpit for the purpose...?

[ex-cath560.livejournal.com]

Hrm, well they went from hereditary peerages to elected representatives but it kind of bit them on the arse as the Lords still block things the government want to push through.

Mind Blair and Co. are now trying to change the amount of power the Lords hold but even though I don't always agree with their decisions I like having that stop-gap - especially when a government has such a large majority as 'new' Labour did the last two tenures.

Wiki has more >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords)

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Harper and Blair seem to be of common mind on this last point of tolerating stop-gaps of any sort...which may well be problematic for both our countries.

More and more, I find myself hoping for a snap election here at home. I know it's not going to happen until the Liberal Party picks their new leader and gets him or her installed in the House of Commons, but I keep wondering if Canada can afford that kind of wait.

[ex-cath560.livejournal.com]

Sadly it is just a waiting game - I'm just hoping the Tories don't make anymore headway and people go Liberal when Blair steps down.

[jcoville.livejournal.com]

I remember in college we had a university political teacher, Dick Tindle who was a PHD in Political Science and we were very lucky to have him.

Anyways he once asked us... if everybody hates politicians, then why on earth would we want MORE of them?

That was his argument against an elected senate.

He did say the Senate was good for one thing, ironing out the legal "rough spots" in bills. Sometimes they'd send a bill to the senate first before it going through the commons. They'd look it over, fix what was dumb about the bill, be it legal language or something else, then it go to the house, go through both the house and the senate with greater ease.

But they couldn't do that with every bill because it would clog the process.

I always though they should take away the Senate, but split the senators into two camps and run bills through them first before going to the house. I know almost all senators are nominated via patronage appointments, but many of them have some actual experience in being a politician or lawyer of some sort and that can be put to good use.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

If you can't have a five-year-old child to point out the obvious flaws in your Grand Plans, use these guys instead?

(Yep, I read the "Evil Overlord" lists. Seems like a good one to keep bookmarked, especially for a poli-sci student or a comics writer or a novelist.)

At any rate, if we have to set up something else in place of the Senate, then this idea of yours seems like a potentially useful one to keep the conniption fits of the nation to a manageable number. And your professorial acquaintance seems to have had a good head on his shoulders the day(s) he made those comments.