Senate Reform

[Smallc]

has no real power

No real power? Really?

[eyeball]

No real power? Really?

Well, compared to us mere people, sure, it's right up there with the rest of the gods.

[g_bambino]

And we should have a useless, costly upper house which represents no one, has no real power and is only a reward system for people who have been in some way useful to the party in power simply because, traditionally in federations it has existed?

And you denigrate every upper legislative chamber because you narrow-mindedly believe they're all identical to the Canadian Senate? Of course you don't; you were just evading the point and wanted instead to vent more anti-Senate vitriol because it's easier and feels good. More rational people accept that bicameral parliaments are necessary for federations and that there's more than one way to structure each house within them.

[cybercoma]

And we should have a useless, costly upper house which represents no one, has no real power and is only a reward system for people who have been in some way useful to the party in power simply because, traditionally in federations it has existed? OK, if it must be,let it be but for only a limited time (say, 5 years) for the political leeches who need the extra income and are used to living off the public tit.

What the bloody hell? I just nodded reading a Tilter post.

[cybercoma]

And you denigrate every upper legislative chamber because you narrow-mindedly believe they're all identical to the Canadian Senate? Of course you don't; you were just evading the point and wanted instead to vent more anti-Senate vitriol because it's easier and feels good. More rational people accept that bicameral parliaments are necessary for federations and that there's more than one way to structure each house within them.

Our Upper House has been utterly useless. It needs restructuring to better underscore the independence and equality of the provinces in our federalist arrangement.

But yeah... the vitriol does feel good when you have hacks like Mike Duffy and Senator Zoolander in the upper house.

Edited September 9, 2012 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

Our Upper House has been utterly useless. It needs restructuring to better underscore the independence and equality of the provinces in our federalist arrangement.

I'd hardly call it "utterly useless". Its less partisan committees have done some very decent work. It has modified bills and sent them back to the Commons for reconsideration. But, yes, it should be reformed. Abolition is not a reasonable option.

But yeah... the vitriol does feel good when you have hacks like Mike Duffy and Senator Zoolander in the upper house.

Interesting, though, that not all appointees there because of Harper's advice have followed Dear Leader's commands. Once in the upper chamber, they've realised he has, unlike with his MPs/clapping seals in the Commons, no punnishment to threaten them with. Lack of Cabinet control over the Senate, once the appointment has been made, is a good thing.

[ed.: punct]

Edited September 9, 2012 by g_bambino

[-TSS-]

Perhaps federalism in a bit outdated form of government belonging to times when communications were more primitive than today. Maybe even a country as vast as Canada could function as a unitary country as long as there is cohesiveness.

[Tilter]

And you denigrate every upper legislative chamber because you narrow-mindedly believe they're all identical to the Canadian Senate? Of course you don't; you were just evading the point and wanted instead to vent more anti-Senate vitriol because it's easier and feels good. More rational people accept that bicameral parliaments are necessary for federations and that there's more than one way to structure each house within them.

More rational people accept that bicameral parliaments are necessary for federations and that there's more than one way to structure each house within them.

I don't care if Gotblanketstan or Krakamoliniker has 6 "upper legislative chamber"s, Canada's senate isn't, hasn't & will never work & we are wasting tax dollars in supporting it.

I would bet that a referendum of Canadian taxpayers would vote not only for abolition of the senate but also would cut ties with that other costly & useless institution--- any connection to the royalty of England.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Tilter

[cybercoma]

I don't care if Gotblanketstan or Krakamoliniker has 6 "upper legislative chamber"s, Canada's senate isn't, hasn't & will never work & we are wasting tax dollars in supporting it.

I would bet that a referendum of Canadian taxpayers would vote not only for abolition of the senate but also would cut ties with that other costly & useless institution--- any connection to the royalty of England.

A referendum almost certainly would not result in the abolition of the Senate. It would result in the status quo.

For the millionth time, the Queen of Canada has nothing to do with the Queen of the United Kingdom. Canada is a sovereign state with its own monarch.

Edited September 9, 2012 by cybercoma

[punked]

A referendum almost certainly would not result in the abolition of the Senate. It would result in the status quo.

For the millionth time, the Queen of Canada has nothing to do with the Queen of the United Kingdom. Canada is a sovereign state with its own monarch.

I think if there is a referendum and it passes in all provinces (which it probably wouldn't) then our government would have to do something.

[cybercoma]

I think if there is a referendum and it passes in all provinces (which it probably wouldn't) then our government would have to do something.

That goes without saying. Of course if a referendum passes on it the government would have to do something. I'm just speculating that a referendum would never pass. People are too stuck on the status quo. Many people want FPTP system and there's tons of good reasons to do so and the referenda on that haven't passed either.

[TheNewTeddy]

Abolition would never pass a refendum.

Quebec has a locked-in share of seats, and would vote no.

The west has hoped for more sears, and would vote no.

The atlantic has over-representation and would vote no.

So your referendum gets 60% or more in Ontario, and then what?

[g_bambino]

I don't care if Gotblanketstan or Krakamoliniker has 6 "upper legislative chamber"s, Canada's senate isn't, hasn't & will never work & we are wasting tax dollars in supporting it.

Who'd've thought that there would actually be (what I presume to be) a grown adult who believes tyranny of the majority is a good thing.

[dre]

Who'd've thought that there would actually be (what I presume to be) a grown adult who believes tyranny of the majority is a good thing.

A hell of a lot of people seem to think its a good thing actually. Every single person that thinks the government should promote a certain set of values for one thing, or a certain religion. Everyone that supports the war on drugs, and the war on prostitution.

[madmax]

Abolition would never pass a refendum.

Quebec has a locked-in share of seats, and would vote no.

The west has hoped for more sears, and would vote no.

The atlantic has over-representation and would vote no.

So your referendum gets 60% or more in Ontario, and then what?

I disagree.

I could see Quebecers to eliminate the Senate.

I could see the West voting to Eliminate the Senate

I could see Altlantic Canada eliminating the Senate.

Its not like these seats have any bearing on the region in practice.

Its just a pasture of patronage.

And populist waves often take on a form of their own and eliminating government duplication and waste becomes very popular when the Senate is exposed to scutiny over its entitlements and priveledges.

[TheNewTeddy]

You could make an argument for Quebec, and, one for the Atlantic even, but I'd like to see your argument for Alberta, in particular, voting to abolish the Senate.