Senator Brown letter to senate

[cybercoma]

Exactly. That proposal that PMs control the senate through personal indebtedness is completely specious.

It's not accurate; not in keeping with human nature; not enforceable; not mathematically sensible.... It's not exhibited in action... It's not a logical nor even a supportable assertion.

It is far beneath Cybercoma's generally reasonable usual.

I never said the PM controlled the entire Senate. But, to say that those who are given a patronage position are not going to give back to that person as a sign of good faith and gratitude is just silly. Half the reason they're appointed in the first place is that they're going to support the PM that appoints them. The other half is indeed a debt of gratitude and it would be bad form to go against the person the handed you your job. This doesn't mean the PM controls the Senate, but then again... maybe he or she does. How was it GST got pushed through again?

Edited June 16, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I think people fail to realise that some Senate reforms will actually increase the influence of the PMO. Senators appointed for eight years will certainly be more likely to feel a need to bow to the prime minister's will, lest they loose out on post-Senate appointments or other perks that could go to those who jumped when the prime minister said to. Even senators elected for short periods like that would be more pressured to follow the party line and would also be looking for rewards when their time in the Senate is up. The Senate might come to be regarded as a duplicate House of Commons in more ways than one.

The Senate position is a perk given out by the PMO. I agree with you that the 8 years terms is myopic and will cause more problems than it solves, lest the Senate becomes an elected body first.

[jbg]

So sad that we have parliamentarians who haven't a clue how Canada's system of government works.

Bartenders seem to have a great feel for how Canada's system of government works.

[Molly]

I never said the PM controlled the entire Senate. But, to say that those who are given a patronage position are not going to give back to that person as a sign of good faith and gratitude is just silly. Half the reason they're appointed in the first place is that they're going to support the PM that appoints them. The other half is indeed a debt of gratitude and it would be bad form to go against the person the handed you your job. This doesn't mean the PM controls the Senate, but then again... maybe he or she does. How was it GST got pushed through again?

Is that what you would do? If given a position of unassailable authourity, even one that was advantageous to you, would you endorse things that you honestly believed are rotten/stupid/ill-advised and bad for the people you are supposed to be working for, just as a thank-you suckup to whoever appointed you?

I wouldn't. Those few senators I have known didn't and wouldn't either, even though they have maintained party loyalties. If they 'support the PM that appoints them' (or any subsequent PM), it is because they share a perspective and a purpose, not because they are paying back by being pylons.

[Moonlight Graham]

The point is that no Senator owes any Prime Minister a damned thing, any more than a Supreme Court judge does.

Except their job.

This letter is a disgrace, but shows the ugly truth of how the Senate works. The PM has FAR too much power, its ridiculous. The PM has a disturbing amount of control on all 3 branches of our gov, the legislature (both houses), judiciary, and obviously executive.

Our system needs reforms to severely tail back the power of the PM. One thing i admire about the US gov system is the separation of powers and checks and balances very carefully and wisely put in place. One person with so much power is NOT democratic, it is somewhat authoritarian by definition.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[g_bambino]

Except their job.

This letter is a disgrace, but shows the ugly truth of how the Senate works. The PM has FAR too much power, its ridiculous. The PM has a disturbing amount of control on all 3 branches of our gov, the legislature (both houses), judiciary, and obviously executive.

Once again, after a senator has been sworn in, he owes the prime minister nothing except perhaps a "thank you". The same goes for Supreme Court judges. And, while the prime minister exercises the most control over the executive, as is exactly how it should be (what's the point, otherwise, of a prime minister?), his ultimate ownership of it is denied by the fact that it's constitutionally vested infinitely in the sovereign.

The only place I'd say the prime minister wields more influence than he should is in the House of Commons. But there are ways to fix or minimise that without system-wide, constitutional overhauls.

[g_bambino]

It seems pretty obvious that this isn't true. When you're given a patronage position to the tune of 6 figures until you're 75, then a hefty pension to boot, then yeah... you sort of owe it to the person that literally handed you your unelected job a bit of gratitude.

Or else...?

[Moonlight Graham]

Once again, after a senator has been sworn in, he owes the prime minister nothing except perhaps a "thank you". The same goes for Supreme Court judges.

In theory yes, but that;s often not how the game works. 'I will appoint you if you support me or do X, Y, and Z.' (whether implicit or implied). This is, by definition, cronyism:

"Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact; often, the appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer."

Certainly sometimes Senators/judges and other appointees will reneg on the 'deal', but the deal exists nonetheless.

And, while the prime minister exercises the most control over the executive, as is exactly how it should be (what's the point, otherwise, of a prime minister?), his ultimate ownership of it is denied by the fact that it's constitutionally vested infinitely in the sovereign.

Yes the GG provides a check on the power of the PM, but by constitutional convention they virtually always act on the advice of the PM...unless the PM goes absolutely ape-nuts.

The only place I'd say the prime minister wields more influence than he should is in the House of Commons. But there are ways to fix or minimise that without system-wide, constitutional overhauls.

Can you provide some examples?

Edited June 16, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Smallc]

In theory yes, but that;s often not how the game works. 'I will appoint you if you support me or do X, Y, and Z.'

And what if they don't?

[g_bambino]

In theory yes, but that;s often not how the game works. 'I will appoint you if you support me or do X, Y, and Z.' (whether implicit or implied).

It's not just theory. What, in reality, can a prime minister do to a senator who doesn't do the prime minister's bidding?

Yes the GG provides a check on the power of the PM, but by constitutional convention they virtually always act on the advice of the PM...unless the PM goes absolutely ape-nuts.

True. But, my point remains: though the executive is what the prime minister exercises the most control over, it still, ultimately, isn't his to do with entirely as he pleases.

Can you provide some examples?

I'll assume you mean examples of how the prime minister's influence over the House of Commons could be diminished. One I can think of is a return to the method of selecting party leaders that we had 40 or so years ago and that the UK still currently employs; i.e. having the party caucus choose the party leader, rather than the party membership at large doing so. This, it seems, makes the party leaders, including the prime minister, more accountable to MPs, which is as it should be in a system of responsible government. Prime ministers in the UK must therefore heed the wishes of the caucus, lest that caucus bring their leader down.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'll assume you mean examples of how the prime minister's influence over the House of Commons could be diminished. One I can think of is a return to the method of selecting party leaders that we had 40 or so years ago and that the UK still currently employs; i.e. having the party caucus choose the party leader, rather than the party membership at large doing so. This, it seems, makes the party leaders, including the prime minister, more accountable to MPs, which is as it should be in a system of responsible government. Prime ministers in the UK must therefore heed the wishes of the caucus, lest that caucus bring their leader down.

That's a fantastic idea. Right now the leader has almost all the leverage vs his caucus, this would balance the tables and make them both accountable to each other.

[M.Dancer]

That's a fantastic idea. Right now the leader has almost all the leverage vs his caucus, this would balance the tables and make them both accountable to each other.

The obverse is then, the leader is not accountable to the party membership, who in the end fund the campaigns of the caucus.

Which is more democratic? A leader elected by thousands or a leader selected by 100?

[Molly]

The obverse is then, the leader is not accountable to the party membership, who in the end fund the campaigns of the caucus.

Which is more democratic? A leader elected by thousands or a leader selected by 100?

How about a caucus selected by thousands?

[g_bambino]

How about a caucus selected by thousands?

Hundreds of thousands, even.

[Moonlight Graham]

The obverse is then, the leader is not accountable to the party membership, who in the end fund the campaigns of the caucus.

Which is more democratic? A leader elected by thousands or a leader selected by 100?

Yes i realize this. It still certainly presents a problem. Ideally, the PM/caucus/MP's are accountable to the electorate. Not sucking up to each other, but to us.

[M.Dancer]

How about a caucus selected by thousands?

They are selected by far more than that....millions

[punked]

punked, I don't think the NDP would like the results of that vote. I find it highly unlikely that Canadians would vote to abolish the Senate.

Last poll I saw that had those types of answers had abolish the Senate out in front. Either way I bet the NDP would like whatever result the Canadian people wanted but lets actually put the question to the people.

[Topaz]

On the news today, it said that on Tuesday, Harper had to change the 8 years to 9 years, so this will give the "new" senators a total of 12 years. I knew the Tories were going to be in trouble when I watch the senate committee meeting on this topic. There were many PC senators saying that 8 years was too short and they wanted 12-15 years. Libs want Harper go to to the Supreme Court to find out what can and can't be done to reform and what part the constitution plays in it. IF Harper has to open the constitution for the reform, I don't think the reform will happen and this could turn out to be the biggest headache for the Tories.

[punked]

On the news today, it said that on Tuesday, Harper had to change the 8 years to 9 years, so this will give the "new" senators a total of 12 years. I knew the Tories were going to be in trouble when I watch the senate committee meeting on this topic. There were many PC senators saying that 8 years was too short and they wanted 12-15 years. Libs want Harper go to to the Supreme Court to find out what can and can't be done to reform and what part the constitution plays in it. IF Harper has to open the constitution for the reform, I don't think the reform will happen and this could turn out to be the biggest headache for the Tories.

The only way it is going to happen is if Harper Grandfathers the old Senators in because unlike some posters claim the Senators who are there now don't believe in Senate reform either way they just like their cushy cushy jobs.

[jbg]

Our system needs reforms to severely tail back the power of the PM.

Would you have said the same thing if the LPC won?

One thing i admire about the US gov system is the separation of powers and checks and balances very carefully and wisely put in place. One person with so much power is NOT democratic, it is somewhat authoritarian by definition.

I am glad you show grudging admiration for anything about our country. Our government is basically a Rube Goldberg machine that functions despite itself.

[RNG]

Our government is basically a Rube Goldberg machine that functions despite itself.

Well said. May I quote you?

[ToadBrother]

On the news today, it said that on Tuesday, Harper had to change the 8 years to 9 years, so this will give the "new" senators a total of 12 years. I knew the Tories were going to be in trouble when I watch the senate committee meeting on this topic. There were many PC senators saying that 8 years was too short and they wanted 12-15 years. Libs want Harper go to to the Supreme Court to find out what can and can't be done to reform and what part the constitution plays in it. IF Harper has to open the constitution for the reform, I don't think the reform will happen and this could turn out to be the biggest headache for the Tories.

I'm still not hearing how exactly any of this isn't going to require the 7/50 formula to be invoked. If Harper doesn't get the go ahead of a sufficient number of provinces, Quebec, and possibly some other provinces, are going to go to the Supreme Court and crush this. It is beyond irresponsible to try to amend the constitution through some sort of pseudo-legal votes in Ottawa.

So much for the Tories as the law and order party. They can't even abide by the most basic bedrock laws of this land.

[ToadBrother]

The obverse is then, the leader is not accountable to the party membership, who in the end fund the campaigns of the caucus.

Which is more democratic? A leader elected by thousands or a leader selected by 100?

In this case, as strange as it seems, the leader selected by a 100, if those are 100 elected representatives. Party members, whether they are tens or hundreds of thousands or just a few dozen, are not in any way accountable to the general electorate. Those 100 MPs are.

I would cut the party membership out of any direct say in picking leaders once that party had a sufficient number of seats in the House to form a quorum. If the party membership wants to influence the leadership, then get their candidate elected at the riding association level.

[jbg]

I am glad you show grudging admiration for anything about our country. Our government is basically a Rube Goldberg machine that functions despite itself.

Well said. May I quote you?

Yes, but with respect to the American government. The Canadian government, under majority government conditions, is more like a dictatorship for term of years rather than a Rube Goldberg.

[g_bambino]

The Canadian government, under majority government conditions, is more like a dictatorship for term of years rather than a Rube Goldberg.

Dictators have no check on their power. For a Canadian prime minister, even one with a majority behind him in parliament, that isn't the case. Regard how, for one example, Harper can't get his desired Senate reform implemented, despite his party occupying the majority of the House of Commons.

[sp]

Edited June 20, 2011 by g_bambino