View Single Post
Old 12-11-2008, 04:43 PM   #33
Bobblehead
Franchise Player
 
Bobblehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in your blind spot.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ikaris View Post
What is exactly is the purpose of the senate? To me it's existence is entirely undemocratic. Historically they just tend to follow the will of the House of Commons (as they rightfully should).

If the Conservatives were serious about getting rid of excess waste like they were trying with the public funding of parties, why don't they go at what seriously does not serve any useful purpose? Wouldn't this even benefit them too considering the current political makeup of the Senate?

Practically, it just seems to be ridiculous and wreaks of corruption based on "patronage" appointments.

While the argument may be made that somehow the senate allows for regional representation in the absence of population, troutman accurately stated the problem with having this sort of representation.

Perhaps one solution to ensure that certain regions do not try to exert control over the resources of another would be to have some sort of notwithstanding clause that applies to economic policy.
They are appointed for life, so that they are not beholden to any group.
They were initially aristocrats who, supposedly, had private fortunes and did the job as a public service.

And if you think about it, in our parliamentary system, we vote for local representatives. Theoretically, a party could win a majority and then elect a new leader who can then appoint any cabinet he so chooses. So the CPC or Liberals could get a majority, then suddenly find Jack Layton cross the floor, their party make him leader, then he is suddenly Prime Minister. He woudl set up the Cabinet of his choice, and it would be perfectly valid in our system. While I'm not sure the Senate could prevent that (and maybe Layton is too big of a stretch, just think of any backbencher repugnant to you, Stephan Dion, Rob Anders, etc), the Senate sure could prevent him from then bringing in any draconian measures.

But the Senate as it stands has become a political patronage trough. There needs to be reform, but I like the concept. But I do not want it politicised, with the same caterwauling like we see in the House of Commons. I would rather see it abolished before that.

Edit: and rerun earlier referred to Sir John A MacDonald's quote about the Senate - a place for "sober second thought"
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti

Last edited by Bobblehead; 12-11-2008 at 04:46 PM.
Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote