Senate Reform is not the democratic exercise it appears
In looking at the headlines related to senate reform I got a glimpse of the implications of this: it will further centralize power in the PMO.
Political winds come and go. Usually the Senate represents the previous government as we all know there is a lag in appointments for a government to regain the majority in the Senate and often when they do they lose it in the House. The Senate being out of step with political winds of change. This is in part what allows that chamber to provide the "sober second thought" as they do not represent the government. The Seneate is the closest thing we in Canada have to the French "cohabitation" where the executive and legislative branches in that country frequently are of different parties or the US where mid term elections rarely allow a party to control both houses for long.
Harper's proposals to limit terms to 8 years will increase the turnover in the Senate such that it will take much less time for a new government to take over that chamber. The fact that elections would be required is not relevant as the chamber would be subject to the same winds as the House. At the core of the Senate reform is an opportunity for each government to clean out the older government faster and have complete control in the PMO.
I say the PMO rather than the House because of course we have seen how little power resides in the House even in a minority situation. The governing party is totally controlled by the PMO, the opposition is captured by the political reality that they are not the most popular party and therefore cannot afford an election at every disagreement. This is what happens when you have an uncooperative government that turns everything in to a challenge. The only thing this does to weaken the PM is that while he is a virtual dictator as long as the public has him first in the polls, if he ever falls to second he will be out at the first opportunity the house has. There are of course many machinations that can be employed to manipulate public opinion and secrecy and deception are essential components but this is what we have: no more checks and balances on a PM-- the most popular party in the land (even without a majority) will have its leader a virtual dictator until the public changes its mind and chooses another dictator. That is how badly our political so-called democracy has fallen. We have now lost all checks on the PM: the senate, the House and the GG are all meaningless only public opinion in the polls will matter because nobody else will challenge it.
I understand that this can be seen as an argument to ban polls from our system since we are effectively maintaining government of dictators by opinion poll.
I think Harper said last night he is appointing senators because the majority (senators appointed by the Liberals) are blocking his agenda. IIRC, Harper also said he gave the provinces an opportunity to elect senators which he promised to appoint, and only Alberta took up the offer.
Senator learns fate next month on fraud charges
They'd cut off his fat-cat pay and fire him, but they can't get LAVIGNE AND HIS LAWYER to attend court at the same time. In the mean time he's still running around Ottawa and attending cocktail parties for dignitaries on the taxpayers dime and continues to enjoy full pay and benefits, perks etc.
Now that Harper has made the Senate an issue, the NDP should make sure their position on the Senate gets some airplay:
Abolish the Corrupt Senate Now!
The Senate is a festering pustule on the arse end of Canada's democracy.
The CBC boartd was buzzing today with conbots. It got freeped for sure because there is no way they agree disagree lined up with people who visit the CBC The same con posters always bitch about all the left wingers only hanging out there. So you know its all BS because because the numbers don't match the demographics. On thr bright side the call for abolishments is getting much stronger.
I put in some thoughtful posts but the moderator was a lib today and didn't show 2 very good posts I wrote.
There is some charcter yapping away at how they are "always an NDP voter" But this time the will vote so they can get rid of harper...you are not an NDP voter because you would know this is one of the best times to not vote liberal. Harper is stick at 32% 6 points lower than last election. You have never been safer to vote NDP than now. Of that 32% one has to remember how much of that is from throwaway votes in alberta and sask. They get 70% plus in some ridings. They are really not polling very high elsewhere, though they have shorn up their base in the praries.
Of course its silly season because this is when harper pulls all his stunts while the house isn't sitting. All media is on his party.
Jack Layton wants to rid Senate of shills and party bagmen
And what a colossal waste of taxpayers money it is.
Seems like we need Senate elections to keep the hacks from getting appointed. I think Senators should be able to fundraise in their free time, but not when they're supposed to be working on public business.
And they would likely go with a FPTP model for senate elections just to avoid acknowledging the fact that our overal electoral system is obsolete and needs modernizing.
"No more replastering - the structure is rotten!"
Ottawa is broken. And it’s time to fix it.
It's time to get the party fundraisers and political hacks who lose elections out of the senate. And just as importantly, it's time to scrap an unnecessary senate that has nothing to do with democracy.
Could the Senate be abolished through a referendum? If not, abolishing it would always be fairly challenging, since(unless I have this wrong)you'd have to get the Senate to vote to aboliish ITSELF.
Abolishing the Senate under the present amending formula would be difficult.
Reforming the Senate under the present amending formula would be impossible.
If abolition were passed in a referendum it would have no legal weight, but there would be considerable pressure on politicians to do the right thing for a change.
Indeed.
I prefer abolition to reform because reform would make it worse as I laid out in my opening post.
Hey Fidel, that link goes to your Hotmail login. Try this one instead:
http://www.ndp.ca/tv-ads
I watched this on CTV today: Senate reform leads to shouting match between Tory senator, NDP MP
excerpt:
Hamilton-area MP David Christopherson, the NDP’s parliamentary reform critic, called Conservative-appointed Senator Pamela Wallin “arrogant and elitist” on CTV’s Question Period Sunday after she snubbed his idea of a national referendum on abolishing the Senate.
An outstanding article by Gerald Caplan!!!
Electing the Senate: worst idea in the history of the planet
I read that article by Gerald ealier and thought it was right on! Think about, having to run a province wide election for one member of the senate - only those with "name recognition" and loads of cash will be able to run - a con upper house forever - just say no!
The question that needs to be asked is bicamerialism necessary in a federation? Should the legislative branch reflect the federal nature of the country? Should elections and government solely be in the hands of the most populous provinces?
Shorter term limits does increase the power of the PMO, one PM who gets at least 8 years as PM would influence the Senate and the legislative agenda years after they are gone. There are lots of models we could consider for an upper house:
Jury Senate model from the Canadian Action Party
Senate by Electoral College in France
Senate appointed by provincial legislatures (United States pre 17th amendment)
Senate elected by STV - Australia
Senate compromised of provincial cabinet ministers - Germany
A Senate entirely appointed by the Head of State is only found in Canada and Jordan.
Of course a deadlock mechanism is required. Ottawa is broken because the Constitution is broken and it is time that we had debate and disscussion on it and fixed it.
McGuinty says "abolish the Senate" - finally.
Tories' Senate reform reference to Supreme Court will divide country, says constitutional law professor
Mr. Mendes said Mr. Harper is engaged in “mischief-making” and is wasting the Supreme Court of Canada’s time forcing it to consider questions, particularly on Senate abolition, which are already clearly spelled out in the constitution.
“The other person who should be spinning in his arm chair is Preston Manning, because this is so antithetical to the triple E Senate which brought Preston Manning into politics,” Mr. Mendes said.
@ Boom BOom
Except I'd remind Mr. Mendes that Preston Manning's idea wasn't all that well-thought out.
A truly bicameral house is bad enough in the American system, with its separate executive branch, and all it's fucked up tension around states rights (would anyone here want to have their state-run electoral system?)
Transplanting that to a british parliamentary system like Canada's would be a complete dog's breakfast. What happens the first time the Prime Minister is a sitting member of the senate, and th H of C can't even hold him to account?
Neuter the senate, or abolish it. There is no other option that will not lead to disaster.
Yup. But the point of the article is that Harper is pretenting to actually be doing something. I should have just ignored the Manning reference.
I'm not criticizing you for bringing it up Boom Boom. I take your point. But I think it can't be said enough that making the senate elected is not such a good idea.
The NDP has always has it right on the Senate. Just abolish the damn thing. Here are two of my best arguments for abolishing the Senate.
1.
2.
Excellent, Krop! Those are two very useless individuals. They're only in it for the money. Probably goes for the rest of those overpaid bastards, too. And they're appointed for life.
I'm interested in what the Supreme Court will have to say on the issue.
I wouldn't find the Senate so offensive if
a) it did not have the power to veto legislation proposed by the elected House of Commons (as is the case with the British House of Lords - pretty sad when we make those folks look good)
b) it was comprised of citizens from all walks of life (i.e. labour, environment, human rights, arts, and yes, even business)
Then, we would have a "citizens' assembly" whose sole purpose would be to provide advice to our elected representatives. The Senate could be a useful source of information to help MPs make their decisions.
Interesting ideas. If you imagine a "jury model" senate, composed of citizens selected by lot for a 1 or 2 year term, it could be quite useful. Give some randomly chosen people a platform to criticise, but not overrule, the elected house of commons. I like it.
Harper or the Senate could send C45 to the SCC for a reference opinion on its constitutional validity. However they would rather ram that through and let the court process take at least 6 years for a definitive answer.
This is just another red herring from the spin doctors in the PMO.