No more stalling, no more holding up legislation in the hopes that it'll die at the end of a Parliamentary Session or due to an election.
Now the Liberals in Parliament will have a hard time voting for legislation they don't like, because they can't use their cronies in the Red Chamber to gut and kill it anymore.
Yes, Harper and the Tories want to reform the Senate so that it'll be elected, at least.
But it's not their fault that they can't. The other guys won't cooperate.
So the other guys can't dis Harper for appointing Senators to fill vacancies.
Besides, doing so will put an end to the undemocratic stranglehold the Liberals have on the Senate, a stranglehold which has been used mostly for the purpose of undemocratically blocking bills passed by the Elected Representatives of the People.
Now that the Senate won't be used by Liberals to render Parliamentary work for naught, then Parliament will now be able to actually work, what with legislation becoming law, finally!
So it's the Liberals' fault mostly that "Parliament doesn't work".
But that's over now.
I like how the TorStar's Susan Delacourt says the Red Chamber is on its way to becoming the Blue Chamber. Wonder if that means the red carpeting will be replaced with blue carpeting in that place. Hell, how about tossing the carpet and just going with hardwood flooring? Everybody's doing it today. Carpeting is soooo old hat!
(Note for any confused Americans, the red and the blue is the other way around up here. Up here, blue means conservative and red means socialist. And orange means really-totally-crazy-socialist. Green means, well, green, as in enviro-fruits-and-nuts. Light blue means Quebec separatist commie bastards, ie. the commie-led Bloc.)
17 comments:
Last paragraph for your American readers cracked me up CS! Well said.
Until TorStar discloses Susan Deacourt's ties to the Gliberal Farty they have no credibility. Having her 'report' on anything to do with Canuckistani politics is a clear conflict of interest.
If the "liberal stranglehold" in the senate is "undemocratic", what makes the conservative effort to establish one any less so?
"Up here, blue means conservative and red means socialist. And orange means really-totally-crazy-socialist. Green means, well, green, as in enviro-fruits-and-nuts. Light blue means Quebec separatist commie bastards, ie. the commie-led Bloc.)"
Love it! How true.
Audrey, it's "democratic" because the Senate won't be blocking a bill passed by Parliament anymore.
After all, Parliament is elected, whereas the Senate isn't.
Yep, Knight... the Left encompasses a whole rainbow of colors. They might as well unite into one party under a rainbow colored flag.
Oh, wait... that's already taken...
A necessary evil. When Conservatives want to introduce change to the constitution (property rights anyone?) or an elected senate, there will be one less enenmy.
What precludes a "Conservative stranglehold" on the Senate from blocking bills proposed by a non-Conservative lower house?
You do understand that a bicameral legislature with one house being a further degree removed from direct representation was deliberately crafted for reasons rooted in things like Plato's observations regarding governance?
There's no such preclusion, Audrey.
However, there's still the option of reforming the Senate...
Why not an elected Senate?
Sure, that takes some doing.
But, hey, YES WE CAN!
So the Left doesn't want to reform the Senate?
Fine. Then they'll have to remind themselves to shut up and not complain... if they're ever back in power in the House and find that there's a Conservative stranglehold on the Senate that can prevent radically extreme left-wing crap bills from becoming law...
This is what I don't understand about your position. You seem to see nothing wrong with a Conservative Stranglehold while simultaneously decrying a supposed Liberal one.
Personally, I'd like to see a number of Senate reforms, but "elected" isn't one. I think there's merit behind the notion of a "sober second thought" that's one further step removed from the volatility of direct responsibility, and would prefer to have at least one chamber not be the kind of circus show that we see south of the 49th.
Well, in order to understand, one must necessarily use one's brain...
Probably harder. Much harder.
No matter how full of "facts" one is, and no matter how advanced one's mastery of written communications, those qualities, while very useful, nevertheless, cannot generate understanding in the absence of appropriately intensive, complex, comprehensive analysis of reality. This is something one must do all the time.
That really didn't provide much additional insight into what seem to me to be a pretty glaring inconsistency in your position.
Well, you do have to do your part.
Understanding isn't something that can be taught, really.
It's a process.
Like growing up. Whether one grows up or not is a matter of the choices one makes.
Whether we'll gain understanding also depends on whether we choose to learn the hard way. The very, very hard, voluntary, self-starting, self-motivating way. The way that really makes one's brain feel like it's being exerted to exhaustion, but which makes it stronger each time one does it.
Something so vastly complex... you don't really expect me to "teach" you to understand in a mere comments thread, do you? C'mon... really, eh!
Ask Kady O Malley she who now works for CBC is an instant expert in the constitution overnight.
Senator reforming was mentioned in a book by a past senator (192?) read by PMSH who mentioned it to the present senators. Apparently these senators remained in shock that this prime minister reads the SENATORIAL BOOK and Constitutional Book from cover to cover.
PMSH has gone to each province reminding them of his intentions senator reforming and will appoint the province's choosen senator as it was done in Alberta, but instead of the province choosing their own elected senator they ignored the prime minister suggestion therefore leaving the prime minister with no choice but to appoint the senators himself.
Alberta elected their own senator but Paul Martin chosed another instead. But when the PMSH came into power he chosed the albertans' chosen senator.
I'm not asking you to "teach". I'm asking you to clarify and/or resolve the disconnect between your support for a Conservative stranglehold and your opposition to a Liberal stranglehold in the Senate. It seems as though your normative evaluations of how political structures are used are relative to the partisan affiliation of those involved.
Political Machiavellianism isn't "vastly complex" by any means. It's actually quite commonplace and usually occurs when individuals are to lazy to think beyond their political leanings to consider the reductio tenability of their positions. I'd just like to know if something more to this instance than that.
*Sigh*... a fine vocabulary and writing skills, but ya still don't "get it".
Reminds me of some of my professors... they prefer to remain inside their box, too, and profess and pretense from within...
Reductio:
unelected + unlimited term = stranglehold
elected + limited term ≠ stranglehold
Post a Comment