Harry Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 I think the NDP has a point here. There is no bigger group of useless people in the country than our unelected Senate. Let's abolish it once and for all. Taxpayers are unfairly subsidizing the Liberals and Conservatives by footing the bill to pay for senators who are actively working on their campaigns, the New Democrats told Postmedia News. The NDP will launch a campaign in Toronto Monday asking Canadians to help them spot "unwanted" senators working on their opponents' election efforts. "They're unelected, unaccountable and unashamed about spending taxpayers' money to get their friends re-elected," a senior party official said. The NDP said Canadians can email the party at sawasenator<P>ndp.ca or tweet using the hashtag #sawasenator, if they see a senator on the campaign trail. The worst offenders, the party said, will be featured on their website. Read more: http://www.canada.com/Senators+working+Tories+Liberals+campaigns+unfair+party+subsidy/4594204/story.html#ixzz1JDpEXqMb http://www.vancouversun.com/Senators+working+Tories+Liberals+campaigns+unfair+party+subsidy/4594204/story.html Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 I think the NDP has a point here. There is no bigger group of useless people in the country than our unelected Senate. Let's abolish it once and for all. I don't get this abolishment bit? Lots of countries have bicameral legislatures. Reform is need, abolishing it, apart from the fact that the Provinces would never let it happen, seems pretty idiotic. Quote
scouterjim Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 I think the NDP has a point here. There is no bigger group of useless people in the country than our unelected Senate. Let's abolish it once and for all. I prefer that we have an elected Senate (but certain provinces don't want that). Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
ToadBrother Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) I prefer that we have an elected Senate (but certain provinces don't want that). The obvious solution is to remove the appointing of Senators from the Queen-in-council of the Federal Cabinet and move it to the Queen-in-council of the provincial governments, and then they can amend their own provincial constitutions to pick the Senators any way they please. Alberta could elect its Senators, Quebec and Ontario could have them appointed. Make it into a truly provincially representative body and then leave it up to each province to decide. Frankly, I think you would find the pressure on the provinces would be the same as it was on the US states leading up to the 17th Amendment, but rather than try to force a particular selection method, let it happen of its own accord. Edited April 11, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I'm all in favour of a chamber of "sober second thought", but what is a reasonable way of achieving it. Needing to be elected makes people pander to the dumb voter, and/or the rich company/union. So what method can we use to put a damper on the common's power without being dumb. The more I think about it, the more I have respect for the US system in many, but not all ways. And definitely, we need the PM to be separate from the ruling party. The worst thing we have, started by Trudeau, and enhansed by each PM since, very much including Harper, is the subjugation of MP's and concentration of power with the PM. That is the biggest weakness of our current system, IMHO. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 And definitely, we need the PM to be separate from the ruling party. That doesn't work. How could it possibly work? Quote
punked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 That doesn't work. How could it possibly work? He is talking about a President. I will tell you one thing I think the Canadian system is broke, but I think the American one is a whole lot broker. Don't want that for one minute. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 He is talking about a President. Not only that, he's talking about a full presidential system. Ask Israel how electing a PM separately within a parliamentary system works - it doesn't. Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Not only that, he's talking about a full presidential system. Ask Israel how electing a PM separately within a parliamentary system works - it doesn't. And what's your opinion of a "representative" rather than first past the post system? I don't remember your stance on that one. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 And what's your opinion of a "representative" rather than first past the post system? I don't remember your stance on that one. My position is that there is no perfect system, but I think that the system we have works very well, and it doesn't need any significant change. Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 My position is that there is no perfect system, but I think that the system we have works very well, and it doesn't need any significant change. In my time, since Trudeau, the PM has taken more and more power and emasculated the MP's. And that is wrong. (In this instance, I'm not soley blaming Trudeau, each PM since has increased this.) So we need some system to give some power back to the individual ridings, and myself, or the guy/girl who represents me. Help me come up with a workable system that could do that. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
William Ashley Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) I can't beleive you people 250+ years the government has been that way. If you want an elected senate HARPER had the chance the have one--- all he had to do was run an election for each spot he got to nominate, instead he filled it with partisan choices ---- he had his chance. (and yes the opposition likely would have allowed this) I don't think the senate needs to be reformed, what is needed is for the PCO/PMO etc.. to make a good choice in the senator because they are there as a protection - having individuals who are experienced professional -legalists, and representatives from the provinces that are stake holders in those places, and people experienced --- every one of those senators should likely be multiple award holder such as the order of Canada, a member of a given legal bar with years of practice, and a strong community activist or something of the sort. Instead we have party fund raisers and sports people? I could be totally wrong in my assessment of those peoples professional specializations - but the senate can be good if it is filled with the right people, you know people that show up and work, and know what they are doing - that is a great start. I'm all for adding a third lower house of sorts (or array of houses but the main one would be the citizens assembly - where everyone has 1 vote, and that vote can be proxied to someone to represent their vote -- 1 vote counts as 1 vote.. so there would be 30+ million votes (even children could vote - their parents would hold their votes until of age of majority (no longer a minor). (there would be other assemblies also) The two houses could still act seperate from the new assemblies.. but these assemblies would be used in specific purposes such as "testing public opinion" on a law, proposing laws, and other various actions -- a populist basis via a multifunctional system for presentation, archival and prioritization of business. They would have their power by "agrement of the house to create a royal comission ---- that is the assembly --- type deal. Meanwhile it would run within the 2nd bank and existing facilities - essentally having negligible cost - as the positions would not be paid by government -- but people could pay someone to reprsent them or pool resources to have someone housed in ottawa for them. Meanwhile anyone could show up for a meeting and have a chance of wild card entry if they wern't a top vote getter. Also people could post comments and vote via a secure voting system within the 2nd bank -- including secure remote "voting pads" Alternatively other voting methods could be allowed --- but the security of this would have to be done through --- a government rolled out communications system that was secure - I won't go into details but a quantum communications rollout will be on the way in the next 5 or 10 years.. once this is out there is much more security in quantum entangled encryption for distance communications. Edited April 12, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 In my time, since Trudeau, the PM has taken more and more power and emasculated the MP's. The answer is in the UK, not the US. Stop letting party members elect leaders. Return accountability to the caucus. There's nothing wrong with our system, there's something wrong with our parties. Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 The answer is in the UK, not the US. Stop letting party members elect leaders. Return accountability to the caucus. There's nothing wrong with our system, there's something wrong with our parties. And the UK is better how? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
punked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 The answer is in the UK, not the US. Stop letting party members elect leaders. Return accountability to the caucus. There's nothing wrong with our system, there's something wrong with our parties. Oh nononononono party members should be the ones who elect their leaders. Smokey backrooms are not good. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 And the UK is better how? The leader is accountable to the caucus. MPs are not nameless faceless people. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) Oh nononononono party members should be the ones who elect their leaders. Smokey backrooms are not good. I disagree. Returning control of leadership to the caucus, as happens in Australia and the UK, allows for MPs to have more voice and more power. I'm not a fan of NDP grassroots populism. Edited April 12, 2011 by Smallc Quote
punked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I disagree. Returning control of leadership to the caucus, as happens in Australia and the UK, allows for MPs to have more voice and more power. I'm not a fan of NDP grassroots populism. I am very much a fan of one member one vote. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I am very much a fan of one member one vote. I'm very much not. It's what allowed the NDP and Liberals to whip the gun registry vote. Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 The leader is accountable to the caucus. MPs are not nameless faceless people. But that's how it is here too. Just somehow, starting with Trudeau, and intensified by Chretien and evey worse with Harper, they managed to shut the MP's up. How here and not in the UK? Not sure how the Trudeau - Chretien dudes did. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 But that's how it is here too. No it isn't. All the parties use one member one vote. Quote
punked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I'm very much not. It's what allowed the NDP and Liberals to whip the gun registry vote. The NDP didn't Whip anything. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) The NDP didn't Whip anything. Right.... Jack got just enough people to change their minds. Edited April 12, 2011 by Smallc Quote
punked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) Right.... Plenty of NDP MPs voted to kill the registry. Edited April 12, 2011 by punked Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Plenty of NDP MPs voted to kill the registry. Funny how it worked out just the way Jack wanted though, isn't it? Quote
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.