Benz Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Because the constituents voted in such a way that indicates they didn't want these people in office. Now they are, by appointment. It doesn't matter whether or not they represent them specifically. They were voted out of the lower house and got an appointment to the upper house. I'm not sure why it's difficult to see how that's a sort of middle finger to the constituents. Lord bambino is on a crusade against all heretics. He receives the orders from the divine directly on his iphone. Quote
cybercoma Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Bambino is just trying to make the point, condescendingly, that these Senators do not necessarily represent the specific cosntituents that voted in their ridings when they attempted to become an MP. He's right, but he's intentionally playing dumb to the fact that it's pretty insulting to the constituents that you would give these candidates a seat in the upper house not only after they had resigned from there to run, but before parliament has even reconvened from the election they lost. Quote
RNG Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 When, other than in Alberta, has there ever been a move to have Senators be representatives of the territory they represent? Again, Alberta Conservatives are leading the pack. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
g_bambino Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Because the constituents voted in such a way that indicates they didn't want these people in office. In an office, and the office wasn't that of a senator. The voters in federal ridings are irrelevant to the matter of Senate appointments, a fact that leads one to question why some insist we're supposed to feel sorry for the voters of Lac-Saint-Louis, Louis-Saint-Laurent, and Avalon. The outrage is contrived and forced, and wholly unnecessary, given that these appointments could already be criticised for a number of valid reasons without it. It seems to just be added puffery, meant only to rile up the faithful to the greatest possible degree. t's pretty insulting to the constituents that you would give these candidates a seat in the upper house not only after they had resigned from there to run, but before parliament has even reconvened from the election they lost. It's more an insult to the dignity of the Senate. [+] Edited May 21, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
RNG Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Exactly. A senate seat isn't an office. Keep your mock indignation in check please. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
ReeferMadness Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Harper is such a hypocrite. He used to criticize the Liberals for their dishonest politicking. Now he's become just like them. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
g_bambino Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 A senate seat isn't an office. Who said that? Quote
RNG Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Who said that? As in elected office. It is an appointed office. Like our system allows the PM to appoint senators. Deal with it. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Sandy MacNab Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Sorry, but the CCF/NDP haven't been this scummy in their 70 years of existence. They haven't had a chance! Thank God! and I aint religious Hopefully, they never will. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 If you create an elected upper house without limiting in some crucial way its powers, you risk undermining the dominance of the House of Commons, which, and let's be perfect clear here, is the chief victory of the last couple of hundred years of Parliamentary history. The Australian constitutional crisis in 1975 was born directly out of that conflict between the two Australian houses. That's my chief concern over an elected Senate; or, to be precise, a fully elected Senate. There are any number of possible ways to select members of an upper chamber of parliament. In Ireland, for instance, some are appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister, some are selected by graduates of certain universities, and the rest - the majority - are elected, but must represent certain fields: administration and public service, agriculture and the fishery, culture and education, industry and commerce, and labour. Right now, the House of Lords is partly hereditary and partly appointed by the Queen on the prime minister's advice. So, just electing senators isn't the only, or necessarily the best, alternative. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 As in elected office. It is an appointed office. You said it wasn't an office. Do make up your mind. Quote
Sandy MacNab Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Harper is such a hypocrite. He used to criticize the Liberals for their dishonest politicking. Now he's become just like them. Don't you Liberals wish he was or will be just like you? Don't hold your breath. Quote
Saipan Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 So much for Senate reform. Same old, same old. How could anyone reform Senate with minority????? Quote
Saipan Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Harper is such a hypocrite. He used to criticize the Liberals for their dishonest politicking. Now he's become just like them. Prove it. Quote
Bryan Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 I don't see what the problem is. If you want to pick your own senators, then do it. Harper has appointed the available elected senator 100% of the time. In the mean time, all Harper has done is follow the established procedure. Besides, my understanding is that the committee structure can't be changed in session. In order to chair the committees, the absolute majority in the upper house has to be in place before the house sits. If you want the senate to pass laws that reform it, you first have to have a senate that is composed of people open to such reforms. I can't help but think that this outrage is exactly what Harper wants. When he comes forward with Senate reform bills, it's going to be pretty tough for the opposition to object to them now. Quote
Remiel Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Ah, but I never said the move wasn't in bad taste, or anything like that. I'm merely trying to understand why people think it was some particular offence to the voters of Lac-Saint-Louis, Louis-Saint-Laurent, and Avalon. The former two aren't even in the regional divisions that the failed electoral candidates now represent in the Senate. Alright. In truth, I think part of the problem is that we have this idea that elections have winners and losers at all, as opposed to just being a value neutral selection process. There are, for instance, solutions for MMP that rest on changing the way people think about this. But insofar as people do attach the "loss" narrative to riding elections, I think it is somewhat insulting at least that Smith, whom if I am not mistaken was completely destroyed, was put back in the Senate. Voters spoke and the vast majority of them did not want him in office; something that should perhaps be more apparent because of his high profile (in the sense that no one attaches any value to a Green party candidate being destroyed because that it was is expected of the Green party based on their profile). Quote
Remiel Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 How could anyone reform Senate with minority????? By coming up with a good idea? Quote
noahbody Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 By coming up with a good idea? Isn't limiting terms to 8 years a good idea? That didn't even get past the House. Quote
noahbody Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 I think it is somewhat insulting at least that Smith, whom if I am not mistaken was completely destroyed, was put back in the Senate. Insulting is when Chretien completely ignored Alberta's elected choices for the Senate. As far as Smith goes, he was first appointed in December. I don't recall anyone disapproving of his selection. As far as the election goes, he was running against an incumbent. People rewarded him with another term in office. Voting for a candidate doesn't mean you disapprove of the other. Quote
Wilber Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 How could anyone reform Senate with minority????? What has this to do with a minority? The obvious conclusion is that Harper promised these guys he would look after them if they resigned their Senate seats to run as MP's and lost. He is showing himself to be no different from Chretien or Mulroney when it comes to the Senate. Bambino is right when he says it is as much an insult to the Senate itself as it is to the electorate. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Isn't limiting terms to 8 years a good idea? That didn't even get past the House. Under the present system, it would just make it easier for future PM's to pack the Senate with their appointees. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Saipan Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 By coming up with a good idea? So why the Opposition don't agree with good ideas? Quote
Saipan Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 What has this to do with a minority? Everything. And also with majority in the Senate. We are still not Republic. Quote
Smallc Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 Under the present system, it would just make it easier for future PM's to pack the Senate with their appointees. That's right. If change is to be made, the most important change would be equal senators for each province, if EEE is what you're trying to get. If therm limits or elections are implemented first, it's going to make what some see as a bad situation into a worse situation. Quote
Benz Posted May 21, 2011 Report Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Bambino is just trying to make the point, condescendingly, that these Senators do not necessarily represent the specific cosntituents that voted in their ridings when they attempted to become an MP. He's right, but he's intentionally playing dumb to the fact that it's pretty insulting to the constituents that you would give these candidates a seat in the upper house not only after they had resigned from there to run, but before parliament has even reconvened from the election they lost. Technically, Harper can do it anyway and there lies the main problem. It's shouldn't be up to Harper to decide. The prime minister of the lower chamber that chooses the members of the upper chamber, that's totally wrong and it is amazing that it still works as is in 2011. Edited May 21, 2011 by Benz 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.