Senatorial Madness, Canadian Style
Sep. 7th, 2006 02:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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?
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?
no subject
Date: 2006-09-07 08:55 pm (UTC)Ireland has more interesting ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad
no subject
Date: 2006-09-07 09:02 pm (UTC)And we come back around to the original question...
no subject
Date: 2006-09-07 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-07 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-07 10:21 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 12:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 12:45 am (UTC)Getting back to the Irish Idea...
Date: 2006-09-08 01:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 01:05 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 01:13 am (UTC)(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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-11 08:00 am (UTC)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)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-11 01:04 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-11 02:11 pm (UTC)