Beware of Spinning Liberals
Whenever I think the CPC messaging could use improvement I take heart by checking out what's going on over in the Liberal Camp.
Senator Art Eggleton spent 5 minutes on CTV Newsnet today arguing against electing senators. His two main reasons? 1) That's how the Americans do it. 2) It could create legislative gridlock.
Memo to Art: The bi-cameral system is designed to create gridlock, so that the end result will be consensus. The only real question is whether you believe that we need appointed elites to save the commoners from themselves, or two sets of elected officials to save the citizens from their government. I know where I stand, and I'm glad to say I know where the new Conservative government stands.
Anyone else smell a majority?
posted by Matt at 6:20 PM
7 Comments:
Because legislative gridlock doesn't happen with the Liberal appointed senate. What a jerk.
December 13, 2006 7:11 PM
The Senator argued for comprehensive reform of the Parliamentary system. He, of course, knows that will rewuire a constitutional amendment which will open the whole political posturing that we've seen before. The Prime Minster's plan needs no such amendment and can be implemented immediately.
Hence the call for comprehensive reform, it is the surest way to protect his overpaid underworked butt from facing any requirement that he obtain honest work. God forbid he face the prospect of being unemployed or having to deal with unwashed to obtain their votes.
December 13, 2006 7:15 PM
I do believe that the current Senate seems to be doing a darn fine job . . . I mean those five Liberal senators from Alberta certainly reflect and take full account of the will and ambition of all Albertans, right?
December 13, 2006 8:45 PM
Liberals will stoop to any level to stop more democracy in Canada, they own most government agencies and corporations plus a whole lot of other organizations entirely funded by taxpayers - there would be less of that in a more democratic country, or at least it would be less partisan.
December 13, 2006 10:32 PM
Of course the US-style elected Senate is designed to cause gridlock and to insure consensus. And that's one system and there's some merit to it, and as such, I for one would support a fully Tripple-E Senate. However, I think that voting for the current perverse Senate (where New Brunswick has 10 seats an BC has 6) with any half-assed measures would be the worst of all worlds.
Also, keep in mind, one thing that almost everybody on this blog thred seem to be forgetting is that there's one HUGE difference between our system and the US system: Responsible Government. If the government loses a vote in the Senate, then the show's over and there's an election. If Bush loses a vote in the US senate, nobody cares.
So if you want this, you'd better be willing to go to the polls every year or so.
So I'd encourage everybody to remember that just opposing Harper's current plan doesn't make them opposed to Senate reform nor does it make them stupid nor does it make them supportive of the existing Senate. But there are bigger issues here and to properly address them, the Constitution needs to be revisited.
PS the person who said that the 5 Liberal Senators who take account of Alberta's wishes really needs to look at the House of Commons. more than 4 in 10 Albertans voted for parties which got absolutely NO representation in the House. So we can level the more or less the same charge against every Alberta Conservative MP.
December 13, 2006 11:38 PM
Sure you could say that the Conservative mps from Alberta don't represent the minority opinion of voters here. On the other hand in each riding where they won the candidate had more votes than the other guys.
We didn't have any say in who the senators were.
December 14, 2006 12:57 AM
Anonymous 3: It's not true to say that an election would occur any time the Senate didn't pass a bill. First of all, the bill in question would have to be a confidence motion. Second, the Senate can send a bill back to the House (like they did with the Accountability Act). In most cases I suspect a dialogue would result and a compromise would be reached. No reason to think elections would be any more common than currently.
Anonymous 2 & 3: The great thing about two elected houses is that voters can split votes when they're not ready to endorse one party/platform 100%.
December 14, 2006 11:37 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home