madmax Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Sounds like a good start. Senators should be impartial to influencing the lower chamber. Considering many are party hacks, bagman, cronies and other typical party backroom activists, of which many can't get elected are Gifted positions in the Senate for their partisan work. The favour should stop there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) What do you call 56 senators at the bottom of the sea.....? .............................. a good start. .......... Sorry to paraphrase an old lawyer joke... btw, I am not advocating concrete-shoes for senators... it was a joke. I don't care about this topic either way.... there has to be a much more broad approach to the Senate. Elected, Effective, Equal. This minor fundraising issue is neither here nor there... a distraction from the fundemental issue of an undemocratic, unelected senate stocked with partisan hacks. Edited January 26, 2011 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Both are great points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Senators should be impartial to influencing the lower chamber. Why? They're members of political parties as much as any other member. Senators do not have to be politically impartial, like the governor general and the monarch he represents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Laytons biggest beef with the senate is ..he doesn't have any senators... Which makes any change he proposes self serving.... That said, I would like it reformed and elected, rep by province. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 The Senate should be abolished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Laytons biggest beef with the senate is ..he doesn't have any senators... Which makes any change he proposes self serving.... That said, I would like it reformed and elected, rep by province. All good points in this thread and the posts above. To be fair. The CCF and its successor the NDP have always viewed the Senate for what it is. A place for political patronage rather then of Representation of any sort for anyone. Since those early days likely some 70 odd years ago, the CCF/NDP have never swayed on that principle and that is why there are no CCF/NDP senators. Ironically, like most everything in the Reform platform, Harper has shelved all principles in favour of political opportunity. Thus, Party bagman get these plum positions. On top of this, the Harper Conservatives have used the Senate, in a way that no other party has done. To overturn the elected body. No sober 2nd thought here for our 3day week warriors. While the concept of the Triple E senate is noble. The fact is, its another layer of government and one we can do without. The idea of electing a government to do things and another elected government to undo things is rediculous. Government is slow enough now, we don't need to have another body to undermine the will of our elected lower chamber. Regardless of this... The fact is, the Chamber is currently nothing more then Political Party Welfare for insiders. These 3 day a week warriors, what is it a 72 day work year? Spend their time on the tax payers dime fundraising for their party masters. This abuse of the Senate and the taxpayers needs to end. Canada would be better served if all these Senators retired but in the meantime, we could either have them work for US and not use their time Repaying their political party for the plum job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 The Senate should be abolished. That argument has all the nuance and depth of a chimpanzee banging a pot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) The CCF and its successor the NDP have always viewed the Senate for what it is. A place for political patronage rather then of Representation of any sort for anyone. The purpose of the Senate is long-term, regional representation, not short-term popular representation, which is what the House of Commons is for. Since those early days likely some 70 odd years ago, the CCF/NDP have never swayed on that principle and that is why there are no CCF/NDP senators. A minor point, but there was at least one NDP senator (she switched to Liberal). Harper has shelved all principles in favour of political opportunity. Perhaps he shelved his plans for reform because he reaised he should've been more diligent in his prior research. It appeared upon his entry into the office of prime minister that he believed the Senate could be reformed with a simple act of parliament, only to discover that it requires constitutional amendment. One could say that, if he really held true to his belief in an elected Senate, he'd push for constitutional change anyway; but, that's a pretty massive undertaking that someone obviously feels the time isn't right for, at the moment. On top of this, the Harper Conservatives have used the Senate, in a way that no other party has done. To overturn the elected body. The Senate didn't overturn the elected chamber; it's still there. It didn't even kill the legislation. It voted against a bill, sending it back to the House of Commons, exactly as senators have done numerous other times. The fact is, its another layer of government and one we can do without. The idea of electing a government to do things and another elected government to undo things is rediculous. Government is slow enough now, we don't need to have another body to undermine the will of our elected lower chamber. It's true we don't need two institutions to do the same job; hence, I don't automatically support the idea of an elected Senate, and certainly have no faith in many of the proposals put forward on these boards and elsewhere. However, it's also wrong to say the Senate is a "layer of government" (I think you mean body of the legislature; the government is Cabinet) we can do without; no federation on the planet has a unicameral parliament. [corr] Edited January 26, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) "The purpose of the Senate is long-term, regional representation, not short-term popular representation, which is what the House of Commons is for." No. The purpose of the Senate is to reward political hacks and bagmen there, chump. The Harpocrits are using it quite effectively in this regard. As I mentioned the Senate should be abolished. By the way you do realize there are four regions with representation in that form as well as through each province. Edited January 27, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) BTW's she didn't "switch to the Liberals" she was kicked out of the NDP as soon as she accepted that seat. There is one party in Ottawa who does what they say they will do. I should also point out that the provinces got rid of their Senates or never had Senates a long time ago and they didn't sink into the Ocean. They are just an added cost their jobs can be gotten rid of and never missed. Edited January 27, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 BTW's she didn't "switch to the Liberals" she was kicked out of the NDP as soon as she accepted that seat. There is one party in Ottawa who does what they say they will do. There might be, but it certainly doesn't have Jack in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 There might be, but it certainly doesn't have Jack in it. Give me a break. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Give me a break. Seriously. I would, except that I don't like when people stretch the truth. The NDP breaks its word just as often as any other human organization....if that weren't true, no compromise Jack wouldn't compromise so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 I would, except that I don't like when people stretch the truth. The NDP breaks its word just as often as any other human organization....if that weren't true, no compromise Jack wouldn't compromise so much. Yah how dare Jack compromise just like he promises he will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Yah how dare Jack compromise just like he promises he will. Tank about partisan hacks.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Tank about partisan hacks.... Oh give me a break the Liberals swing left and right every hour on the hour. Layton at least gets things done. What in the last 2 years there was one thing Layton voted with the Cons on, it was giving 200,000 workers who have paid into EI for a number of years an extension. Yah ok you are being ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Bambino, your post #9: gold star for sweeping away the BS. Refreshing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 The purpose of the Senate is to reward political hacks and bagmen there, chump. Is that some pot banging I hear again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Bambino, your post #9: gold star for sweeping away the BS. Refreshing. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 The purpose of the Senate is long-term, regional representation, not short-term popular representation, which is what the House of Commons is for. The Senate is not used for that. Whats on paper and whats in practice are mutually exclusive. To suggest that the Senate represents regional interests is a Charade. The Senate Represents political party patronage. That is the reality. Its sad but true.A minor point, but there was at least one NDP senator (she switched to Liberal). There never was an NDP Senator. If u held an NDP membership and were appointed to the Senate, ones membership would be terminated. If you wanted to be an NDP member in the Senate, the Caucus which is still based on Parties, would not accept that individual. I believe there was a member appointed by the Liberals whom sat as an independent and said she was a NewDemocrat. But the reality is that person does indeed sit as a Liberal. I don't even know who this person was or if she ever once ran or held office? Regardless, it is because of that Principle of Senate Abolition that there are no NDP Senators or CCF Senators. It is the party that determines membership and revokes membership. Perhaps he shelved his plans for reform because he reaised he should've been more diligent in his prior research. It appeared upon his entry into the office of prime minister that he believed the Senate could be reformed with a simple act of parliament, only to discover that it requires constitutional amendment. One could say that, if he really held true to his belief in an elected Senate, he'd push for constitutional change anyway; but, that's a pretty massive undertaking that someone obviously feels the time isn't right for, at the moment. The Senate didn't overturn the elected chamber; it's still there. It didn't even kill the legislation. It voted against a bill, sending it back to the House of Commons, exactly as senators have done numerous other times. It's true we don't need two institutions to do the same job; hence, I don't automatically support the idea of an elected Senate, and certainly have no faith in many of the proposals put forward on these boards and elsewhere. However, it's also wrong to say the Senate is a "layer of government" (I think you mean body of the legislature; the government is Cabinet) we can do without; no federation on the planet has a unicameral parliament. [corr] Good Points of discussion. We certainly can do without the Senate. Not a Single Person in this Country would miss it or even notice its absence once abolished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 That argument has all the nuance and depth of a chimpanzee banging a pot. Abolish the Senate. Regardless, this thread is about Banning Senators from Fundraising for Political Parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 There might be, but it certainly doesn't have Jack in it. Well then, I guess there aren't any.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Is that some pot banging I hear again? Going down those lists of Senators, its a list of patronage appointments for Party Operatives and Bagman. Call it a pot, call it whatever u like. You like the concept of the Senate as drafted in the Original BNA. But it never panned out as penned. The rest of the talk about the Senate is more what u would like it to be rather then what it really is. The thread topic is about how the Senate is used as a tool for Political Parties and Not for the Country. That is fact. And thus the kickoff of this discussion. Yet the Senate Defenders like this Practice of Liberals and Conservatives appointing SEnators to then do fundraising for their Parties while being paid by the taxpayer as a Senator. These parties milk the cow and the taxpayer pays and the parties benefit. The defenders of this practice. Are Liberals and Conservatives... So I am not surprised at the responses. The general public, would never miss the Senate. And I wouldn't miss Mike Duffy swinging into to town on the taxpayers dime to raise TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars for the Conservatives while billing us for his trip and meals, and party vacations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Thank you! Its always nice to be appreciated for your comments. I do appreciate them as well. With regards to the #9 post more then the monkeys Edited January 27, 2011 by madmax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.