bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
...who on earth would support an unelected legislature?That is, once again, evidence that we must invade.
This.
Democracy in Canada shut down
- Thread starter sysyphus
- Start date
This.
Quackers
The Frog
Yeah I know
They recently stopped the government destroying freedom of speech in this country they are good.
Orange Seeds
playing with cymbals
...who on earth would support an unelected legislature?
The senate is the inferior chamber of parliament. While it has all the theoretical power of the house of Commons, rarely in practice does the senate play a relevant role in law creation. It is inferior because it is not directly publicly accountable unlike the house of commons. Thus an elected senate ensures that there would become two competing chambers.
Something frequently overlooked by analysts in the availability of information to an uninformed public. Considering that a very small percentage of the public reads individual bills, knows the names of interested MP's or listens to individual members positions in parliament, it seems that the vast majority of voters do not have the information required to decide where a bill immediately comes from. So then, if a bill is considered poor policy by an individual voter, he will not know who to hold accountable. If a voter does not know who to hold accountable for a policy he does not agree with, the democratic process has failed.
Partisanship is a symptom of this failure as those persons who do not know where to place fault rely on public rhetoric, or simply fall into the partisan trap(it is from party a, therefore i support it/it is better than the alternative/etc.) because they will always be able to contest where a bad decision came from. A simplified example can be seen during Clinton's presidency where Democrats might praise the presidency for the reduction in debts and Republicans might praise the Congress; each is likely to be unreceptive to beliefs about the other's role.
Considering that an elected senate will create two equal chambers, who will create competing bills and that the PM only sits in one of these chambers we can see that an elected senate reduces the authority of the PM. Currently 95+ percent of bills come out of the PM's office, so the public can hold government basically accountable if it memorizes one face and one name; 99% of voters have done this by nature of them being voters. Once this power is lessened the public will be forced to deeply analyze the actions of numerous parliamentarians in multiple chambers in order to hold public officials accountable as one could say 'this was not the intention of the PM but was a forced manipulation by the senate/senator x/MP x.' Thus an elected senate confuses the legislative process.
It seems if we want the public to be capable of holding government basically responsible, we need to avoid as many things as possible that befuddle the legislative process. Only in the face of overwhelming necessity should we create institutions that do so.
So the only question that remains is if there is overwhelming necessity to have an elected senate? Something being an overwhelming necessity would entail the collapse of the system, or great injustice without it. Most informed Canadians will understand that there is no overwhelming necessity.
Our civic's teacher said that a contreversial part of the senate is that, since they rarely ever veto, their purpose is symbolic.
So many senators are absent from their "duty"
While still being paid. And are they appointed for life?
So many senators are absent from their "duty"
While still being paid. And are they appointed for life?
I'd be surprised if the GG goes through with it. If she does, then at least the politics would become interesting again.
From what I understand, she already has. Hence why it is proven that an unelected GG is useless. Kind of difficult for a GG to discipline the PMO when it's the PMO that has the power to appoint or sack the GG.
And to the next Yank that considers coming in here with yet another useless annexation joke: do so and we'll foreclose on your house (you're probably unaware that every one of your banks is now Canadian owned.)
From what I understand, she already has. Hence why it is proven that an unelected GG is useless. Kind of difficult for a GG to discipline the PMO when it's the PMO that has the power to appoint or sack the GG.
And to the next Yank that considers coming in here with yet another useless annexation joke: do so and we'll foreclose on your house (you're probably unaware that every one of your banks is now Canadian owned.)
Well why call a spade a spade call it a President and call ourselves a Republic?
What you say is true, but the point of the Senate is not so much to veto as to have a group of seasoned policy makers review legislation and provide feedback. Contrary to how it seems a lot of the time, it works quite well.
The only people it doesn't work so well for are ego-driven PMs who don't like being questioned, such as our current PM.
Most PMs hate the Senate actually, until they load it up with their own yes-men, but Harper is beyond anything we've ever seen before.
Because electing the GG does not necessitate scrapping the monarchy (to which I am indifferent).
Presidents tend to have more authority than what I'd like to see the GG have anyway.
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Step 1: Say you want an elected Senate, refuse to appoint senators if elected
Step 2: Get elected and do something stupid that will get the opposition who control the majority all really mad at you
Step 3: Pressure the GG into prorogueing Parliament, claim other parties are attempting an illegal coup, when that is the complete opposite of what is actually happening
Step 4: Appoint a ton of loyal senators, just in case you do get kicked out
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit
Last time I was walking around Parliament Hill, there were 2 cars in the Senators section, one of which was an old somewhat-rusted Toyota. It was something I'd drive. I liked it.
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
As I recall, they have to retire at age 70.
Seventy-five.
Honestly, when I first heard about the proroguing of Parliament, was I actually ... nonchalant. Previous governments have used it before, as I vaguely recalled, to start new sessions of Parliament. So I don't consider it as grave a threat to the realm as people here take it to be, and was somewhat taken back the stridency of internet chatter. I still think if the Tories hadn't done with the last winter before, under the threat of replacement, it wouldn't have been as big an uproar.
On the whole, however, I concur with the majority here in saying its a move in bad faith and I don't like it one bit. The government did prorogue, and it's made people sensitive about the matter, which the government ignored in its considerations. That says a lot about the government.
On the whole, however, I concur with the majority here in saying its a move in bad faith and I don't like it one bit. The government did prorogue, and it's made people sensitive about the matter, which the government ignored in its considerations. That says a lot about the government.
potatokiosk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,292
And to the next Yank that considers coming in here with yet another useless annexation joke: do so and we'll foreclose on your house (you're probably unaware that every one of your banks is now Canadian owned.)
Is JP Morgan Chase a Canadian company?
...who on earth would support an unelected legislature?
Yeah, I like how Australia has the whole Westminster System thing more down pat than the UK and Canada, due to the nice little modifications in it.
I would think (and this goes for the House of Lords as well) that it is high time unelected legislatures with actual power are done away with. Not knowing anything in particular about Canadian politics, I would think that it isn't too unreasonable for Harper to stack the Senate. I assume that's what all PM's would do. But having that ability represents a major failing of the system, I would think.
Is JP Morgan Chase a Canadian company?
No, but the bank that owns it now is.
I often watch our two sibling nations in the Southern Hemisphere and how their governments work. In Canada there is always talk about adopting some of the principles that you have down in Aus and NZ, but people are always too afraid to move from the status quo, and I suspect it's much the same in the UK as well.
That said, it's hard to convey the situation here to others abroad, you kind of have to get to know the characters involved and understand the underlying issues to really get a sense of the situation here.
Note to Babbler: Before Harper's first prorogument last year, the last previous time was during the Pearson government. Government's since then have used other tactics such as dissolution, but these do not carry the same impact as proroguing.
The move is especially galling in the context of Harper's government being in contempt of Parliament over the detainee committee documents. "We lack the confidence of the House, and blow Python-like raspberries at a direct order given by Canada's only representative body, but Her Excellency will give us legal sanction to ignore Parliament until the budget drops and everyone forgets how little we care about democracy, because that's what she did last year under even more dubious circumstances."
An elected GG would be worse than what we have, since the position would become obviously partisan, but something needs to be done. This whole business is setting a disastrous constitutional precedent.
An elected GG would be worse than what we have, since the position would become obviously partisan, but something needs to be done. This whole business is setting a disastrous constitutional precedent.
Shadylookin
master debater
I know you don't have a constitution, but is there a legal precedent for making parliament go home? I can see it being legal to force parliament to meet(like the president can do to congress here) but I can't see why you would want to make them not work while you're paying them.
