|
It'd be nice if appointing someone to the Senate was closer to how we appoint people to the Supreme Court. That would probably increase the confidence a lot of people feel in the senate because while it isn't at all democratic its at least a set of procedures based on clear rules and precedents rather than just reflecting the whim of the Prime Minister. As it stands the Prime Minister has way too much power to simply appoint whichever senators he pleases. Its true that once they are in the Senate they can defy the Prime Minister but in practice the way people reach the senate is by displaying many decades of party loyalty. While I admitedly don't have strong feelings one way or the other on the Senate, it does seem like most of its functions could be replicated by strengthening the power of Parliamentary committees. If committee appointments were less dependent on the whims of the PM and perhaps based on seniority in the House then they'd offer an alternative career path for MPs who don't want to suck up to the PM. So taking various steps to both insulate parliamentary committees from outside influence and to enhance the power of those committees might be a more democratic alternative to the senate. Now that having been said, the way committees work in the USA has some superficial resemblance to the system I'm describing and its a complete clusterfuck where porkbarrel politics and horse trading are the order of the day. So your mileage may vary here.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
If the Senate is going to be appointed I'd rather members be drawn from the ranks of Canada Chairs. Make it so that everyone in the senate has a PhD and a career of research and publishing. Much easier to have a sober second thought chamber based on evidence when all the senators are trained to critically evaluate literature before acting. Maybe while we're at it, members of parliament could also be required to have expertise other than running a small business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Educated people have their own predjudices. I'd rather see the senate appointed from a wider pool of stake holders. Sure put a lot of eggheads in there, but I'd also like to see people from specific communities or institutions get some kind of representation. As someone who has been inside the Ivory Tower my entire life I assure you that PhDs are just as capable of making disastrous mistakes as anyone else. Sometimes they are actually worse. Also most parliamentarians aren't businessmen, they are lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It'd be nice if appointing someone to the Senate was closer to how we appoint people to the Supreme Court. That would probably increase the confidence a lot of people feel in the senate because while it isn't at all democratic its at least a set of procedures based on clear rules and precedents rather than just reflecting the whim of the Prime Minister. Thia would be my ideal, a chamber of the accomplished in all kinds of fields now that we (theoretically) value achievement more than bloodlines. But I imagine it would be hard to do with such a generalist chamber (hell, it is hard to do with the Supreme Court: while that process has procedures and traditions the criteria aren't even remotely objective, nor could they be.) The weird irony of the Senate, the House, and responsible government as it is practiced in Canada is that the House are theoretically chosen by the people for their ideals, but are in practice put into that position due to their partisanship, and remain in the position to be chosen by party loyalty (barring high profile independents like Nunziata/Casey/Rathgeber-to-be, who tend to gain that profile via prior loyalty until they reach some breaking point or other.) Without that loyalty, they lose out on speaking assignments, prominence and power within the Commons, and eventually, their nominations to even run under the party banner. Without that loyalty, the credible argument goes, the Government would fall and mere anarchy would be loosed upon the world. Would you have that on your conscience, Mr or Ms Trained Seal? Raised taxes, socialists and separatists living together, mass hysteria? I agree that Senators are commonly appointed as a reward for party loyalty. Effectively, though, while Senators get to their positions through loyalty, they are unlike MPs in that they keep their positions whether they are loyal or not, and so the PMO cannot exercise the same leverage on them. It is through the security of their tenure that the Senate Tory caucus gains the independence to defy the Prime Minister more often (if less prominently) than the House Tory caucus does, to act from premises beyond the short-term political caluclus. Which is precisely what Fine-able Offense and I keep pointing out examples of, to help supply a counternarrative to the usual run of news story. Now, obviously there are other ways to do what the Senate ideally does, and the House does not have to be as it currently is, (and we'll see if MPs ever find the backbone to reassert its authority given that the Speaker has basically dared them to assert themselves and take it). But I have consistently argued that the problem is not the institutional structures of the House or the Senate, except insofar as those structures have both lent too much power to the executive. edit: oh jesus christ this was way longer than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
I could really get behind a red chamber full of technocrats and individuals with important skills (nebulous, I know). Legal experts, social workers, scientists, business people, public health experts, etc. I think the push to have Senators elected, while an admirable change, will give us party loyalists and political charlatans similar to what we see in the House. I don't really have any evidence to back this up, but it seems likely that Canadian elections will produce similar results across both chambers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
An elected senate would just be another layer of gridlock. Better to abolish the senate or leave it in its present form than to make it elected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
I've got twenty-eight guys lined up we can all count on to serve as Senators with distinction 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Man NDP supporters sure have internalized those right-wing "reduce gridlock"/"smaller government!!" talking points pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Man NDP supporters sure have internalized those right-wing "reduce gridlock"/"smaller government!!" talking points pretty well. "Reduce gridlock" isn't a right wing talking point, gridlock being a sine qua non product of government is, and when the right talks about smaller government they mean government services not patronage services. No self respecting leftist in any country supports an upper chamber of unelected patricians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Man NDP supporters sure have internalized those right-wing "reduce gridlock"/"smaller government!!" talking points pretty well. Reducing barriers to legislative action is perfectly consistent, and even necessary, for supporters of an interventionist government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:"Reduce gridlock" isn't a right wing talking point, gridlock being a sine qua non product of government is, and when the right talks about smaller government they mean government services not patronage services. So elect them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
All aside, I imagine the NDP primarily supports abolishing the senate because it is full of Liberal and Conservative senators and zero NDP senators. Even if the NDP got in to power I bet the LPC and CPC would attempt to poo poo all over the NDP through the senate.mr. unhsib posted:So elect them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:But an elected senate is then redundant to parliament. Two elected chambers is redundant? Have you told most of the rest of the world???
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Two elected chambers is redundant? Have you told most of the rest of the world??? What qualifies as "the rest" here? And yes, many would argue, myself included, that including an elected second chamber, when the first is elected, is redundant. Here's a simple test for redundancy: Do they both do the same thing? Can one be made to do the work of both, without massively increasing the responsibilities and workload? If yes, then...
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Reducing barriers to legislative action is perfectly consistent, and even necessary, for supporters of an interventionist government. I agree. For instance, the union disclosure bill it just blocked. This is a good thing. It helps, when considering the future of the Senate in Canada, to not assume we're on the cusp of neverending NDP majority in the House of Commons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:So elect them. Would be as difficult a process as abolishing them, why should I prefer a radical change to the parliamentary process that yes will result in more gridlock. Why do you think gridlock is a leftist value?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:It helps, when considering the future of the Senate in Canada, to not assume we're on the cusp of neverending NDP majority in the House of Commons. What? You don't say?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:What qualifies as "the rest" here? Dear lord you think this is how governments are built? Never mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Would be as difficult a process as abolishing them, why should I prefer a radical change to the parliamentary process that yes will result in more gridlock. Why do you think gridlock is a leftist value? Disagree that electing the Senate is easier than abolishing it, and disagree that electing the Senate is also more radical than abolishing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:An elected senate would just be another layer of gridlock. Better to abolish the senate or leave it in its present form than to make it elected. After a lot of reflection, I came to the same conclusion. Abolishment isn't really a good option, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:It helps, when considering the future of the Senate in Canada, to not assume we're on the cusp of neverending NDP majority in the House of Commons. A trans gender rights Bill just passed under a Conservative Majority in the Commons. Your hallowed Senate is in the process of killing it for a second parliament in a row. mr. unhsib posted:Disagree that electing the Senate is easier than abolishing it, and disagree that electing the Senate is also more radical than abolishing it. The majority party favours electing the Senate (they are also the only party in favour of electing it) if they haven't managed to do it in 7 years in power how exactly do you think it's going to come about?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Two elected chambers is redundant? Have you told most of the rest of the world??? The "rest of the world"? By which you apparently mean "America" and their super functional and highly desirable upper chamber?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:After a lot of reflection, I came to the same conclusion. Yeah no one is going to try and reform the constitution again for a few more decades I would think, so practically speaking its hard to imagine the Senate's status quo changing that radically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The "rest of the world"? By which you apparently mean "America" and their super functional and highly desirable upper chamber? No, I think he means the dysfunctional hellholes that are France, Spain, Germany, and Italy (for examples that can't blame it on Westminster.) Okay, Italiy is dysfunctional but I wouldn't blame it on their elected upper chamber. (edit: Wikipedia has a brief summary of what's running where.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Disagree that electing the Senate is easier than abolishing it, and disagree that electing the Senate is also more radical than abolishing it. Forget it, Jake, it's the
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Forget it, Jake, it's the Yup. You know there is a bloody good reason you NDP people aren't voted into power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:No, I think he means the dysfunctional hellholes that are France, Spain, Germany, and Italy (for examples that can't blame it on Westminster.) Neither the French or Spanish upper houses have the power to reject legislation, and the Italian senate is very, very much a core reason for their political system's dysfunction. e: Oh, the German upper house can only reject a portion of legislation as spelled out in the constitution. Not all legislation needs to pass it. Pinterest Mom fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Yup. There are easily as many posters arguing for the Senate as against it here, do we really need to start with the persecution song and dance every time you run out of argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Forget it, Jake, it's the Baloogan posted:You know there is a bloody good reason you NDP people aren't voted into power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:There are easily as many posters arguing for the Senate as against it here, do we really need to start with the persecution song and dance every time you run out of argument. Funkdreamer posted:This is how not to behave when your arguments get dissected. What arguments? Press the little '?' below my name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:What arguments? Press the little '?' below my name. Kind of the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Disagree that electing the Senate is easier than abolishing it, and disagree that electing the Senate is also more radical than abolishing it. It's not clear what you're even saying here, but the process for getting to an elected Senate (unless we're talking about "submitting recommendations" that the PM can just ignore like fixed election dates) is at the very best only slightly easier than abolishing it, and both are in "lol no" territory given the constitutional practicalities. For all intents and purposes they're identical process-wise and Sloth is perfectly right to treat them that way. I think bicameralism can be useful in the "second opinion" sense, but that second opinion has to be meaningfully distinct, and how that power functions in relation to the primary opinion is critically important. Whether it's "representative of subordinate governments" like the Bundesrat or the original conception of the US Senate, or "sober second thought" like the ideal Canadian Senate or the modern Lords, or some other conception, it can't just be a rehash of the original body. You may have mocked that simple formula for redundancy but it makes sense. If you have two bodies explicitly designed to step on each other's toes you will get nothing good. Distinguish them or kill one. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Not buying the callow reductionism of this to a partisan issue either, I knew the Senate was bullshit back when in my misbegotten time as a Dion supporter and it's abolishment has been backed by the likes of Dalton McGuinty and Brad Wall, on the other hand most of those favouring an elected Senate in this thread are hardly card carrying Conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Why is it a partisan "NDP hack" issue anyways? Harper used to be in favour of abolishment as well. The NDP have latched on to it because it can be used a way to capture the frustration with the current government and turn it in to votes while being a safe tactic because they know they will never be able to pursue it since that requires opening the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Not buying the callow reductionism of this to a partisan issue either, I knew the Senate was bullshit back when in my misbegotten time as a Dion supporter and it's abolishment has been backed by the likes of Dalton McGuinty and Brad Wall, on the other hand most of those favouring an elected Senate in this thread are hardly card carrying Conservatives. Honestly if we can reduce this to any stupid generalization it's "technocrats versus democrats", which is understandable because that's the root of our disagreement. You and Pinterest put a much higher value on democracy in and of itself than I (and I assume Fine-able, but obviously I can only speak for myself) do, and so something that's salvageable to me is intolerable to you. I doubt either of us will really change that basic of a premise, so if we were having this out at one of our pub nights I'd say "agree to disagree", but since this is D&D I'll just say "until next time."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
My issue with the idea of stocking an org with skilled technocrats is that these groups of "skilled technocrats" that get in power in various parts of the world don't really have that much of a better track record than elected politicians. Like it sounds good, have a check/balance of a bunch of smart successful people, but who's picking those people, who's vetting them, who's ensuring they have the skills and ethics to handle that sort of power? Oh, it's generally politicians doing favours? Yeah great way to get the best of the best in there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Honestly if we can reduce this to any stupid generalization it's "technocrats versus democrats", which is understandable because that's the root of our disagreement. cowofwar posted:The NDP have latched on to it because it can be used a way to capture the frustration with the current government and turn it in to votes while being a safe tactic because they know they will never be able to pursue it since that requires opening the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd be fine with just neutering the Senate. Instead of giving it the power to reject legislation by the House, just require the House to take 30 (or 60 or 90 or whatever) days to consider any amendments or rejections of legislation by the Senate, and then have the House be the sole deciding vote. You get ~sober second thought~, the Senate doesn't get to overrule elected representatives, everyone's happy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
The incessant complaining about NDP partisanship in this thread is really weird. There are plenty of biases on display in here but slavish consistency to the NDP platform certainly isn't one of them. Who in this thread has ever rabidly defended the current incarnation of the NDP?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Honestly, I'd be fine with just neutering the Senate. Instead of giving it the power to reject legislation by the House, just require the House to take 30 (or 60 or 90 or whatever) days to consider any amendments or rejections of legislation by the Senate, and then have the House be the sole deciding vote. You get ~sober second thought~, the Senate doesn't get to overrule elected representatives, everyone's happy? Not really, no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:48
|
|