The good news is that he still can't pack the Senate enough to get a free ride... the Liberals (with their much longer access to the levers of Senate packing) would still outnumber the CPC+PCs.
-- Steve is disappointed at the number of promises Harper's breaking, not because he's breaking them but because a) so many of his supporters won't recognise that Harper's doing so, and b) from this Steve's perspective that Stephen is breaking the wrong ones. (Pointless GST cuts from heck...)
"We remain committed to Senate reform, which means elections for senators," a government official said. "[But] as long as the Senate exists in its present form, Senate vacancies should be filled by a government that Canadians elected, not a government that Canadians rejected."
That sounds like the Canadian analogue of, "I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."
I don't quite get what's happened. Is he filling seats that were completely empty, that were supposed to be filled by election, or re-filling seats that were going to be vacated by retirement?
Fortunately, Liberals/NDP are afraid of anything resembling a weapon, and require the government to take care of them at all times. So the threat that they pose physically is beyond minimal.
The senate is the Canadian equivalent of the House Of Lords. You don't get elected to it - you get appointed, for life. Your job is is collect a salary and collectively veto the most egregiously stupid and counterproductive of laws. Those happen about once a generation.
There were 18 seats vacant. The previous government left them open because, basically, a Senate seat is a really plum gig that you give out as a reward for loyal service, and it's traditionally been politically bad to stuff the Senate full of your friends all at once.
Harper campaigned on the idea of making the Senate seats *elected*, not appointed, and now, since he knows he's completely fucked and the only reason he isn't out on his ass is that he dissolved Parliament before it kicked him out (coughBerlin1933Reichstagfirecough), he's trying to stuff it full of his friends and people he wants to bribe.
Eenteresting. So does the Senate actually have the power to save Harper when the no-confidence vote comes up (if it had a conservative majority, anyway)?
No. The House Of Commons passes bills to the Senate. The Senate has the ability to refuse to rubber-stamp it and send it back. However, a vote of no confidence is a *failure* of a vote to pass the House.
What stacking the Senate does, however, is A) prevent anyone else from giving out Senate appointments B) let him bribe a LOT of people and groups C) prepare for the theoretical future day when another Con party PM can do the same thing he's doing, giving them an unelected and unaccountable majority capable of vetoing any real laws. Because, after all, the failure of the Senate to exercise power is TRADITIONAL, and the Con party motto might as well be "if it wasn't meant to be sploited they should have patched it lol"
It seems to me that the only difference between this and our federal courts is that judges take the opportunity to overrule the legislative and executive branches hundreds of times per year instead of once a generation ... well, that and that it seems like it really should take an act of Parliament to confirm the appointments, which would remove the ability to perform this sort of lame-duck shenanigans.
But it's all part of being a young country. Actually, the United States was just about this old when we switched to directly electing the members of our upper house.
s that judges take the opportunity to overrule the legislative and executive branches hundreds of times per year
Well, when your legislative and executive branches are illiterates who can't even *spell* "constitution" and who keep doing their best to remove rights from minorities, what do you expect?
(Canadian courts overturn laws less often only because Canada has fewer really stupid laws)
Actually, the United States was just about this old when we switched to directly electing the members of our upper house.
Canada does not *have* an upper house. The Senate is similarly named, but pserves only slighly more than "none" of the same purposes as the US Senate.
The Senates of Canada and the United States serve the same essential purposes as the upper house of virtually every other bicameral legislature on Earth; a pompous over-ritualed collection of relatively long-sighted statesmen there to thwart the most capricious whims of the "people's house". Admittedly, ours has a few extra mandates, including originally protecting the rights of the smaller states, and probably does much more filtering than most national bicameral legislatures, and our Senators lost much of their gravitas when they started standing for direct election instead of being appointed by their state's legislature, but at the end of the day it's the same damn thing.
And Canadian courts overturn laws less often because your system has an extremely limited scope for judicial review, as opposed to our ad-hoc full-contact experiment. I'm not sure that we've got the balance right, but I'm not going to be quick to accept the hypothesis that our clothes are dirtier than yours just because we wash ours in public more often.
The Senates of Canada and the United States serve the same essential purposes as the upper house of virtually every other bicameral legislature on Earth; a pompous over-ritualed collection of relatively long-sighted statesmen there to thwart the most capricious whims of the "people's house"
The Senate of the USA is a legislative body. Bills are introduced and voted on. Bills can START in the Senate.
The Senate of Canada is a formality. No government has to worry about a bill not passing the Senate - that's like worrying that it won't receive the Queen's Assent. It would have to be an incredibly controversial bill in the first place.
The Senate of the USA is a functioning (argue that word as much as you feel necessary) part of government. The Senate of Canada is a reward for a political job well done.
In practice, the two are pretty much nothing alike.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-11 10:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-11 10:05 pm (UTC)-- Steve is disappointed at the number of promises Harper's breaking, not because he's breaking them but because a) so many of his supporters won't recognise that Harper's doing so, and b) from this Steve's perspective that Stephen is breaking the wrong ones. (Pointless GST cuts from heck...)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-11 11:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 12:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 12:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 12:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 12:30 am (UTC)There were 18 seats vacant. The previous government left them open because, basically, a Senate seat is a really plum gig that you give out as a reward for loyal service, and it's traditionally been politically bad to stuff the Senate full of your friends all at once.
Harper campaigned on the idea of making the Senate seats *elected*, not appointed, and now, since he knows he's completely fucked and the only reason he isn't out on his ass is that he dissolved Parliament before it kicked him out (coughBerlin1933Reichstagfirecough), he's trying to stuff it full of his friends and people he wants to bribe.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 01:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 02:02 am (UTC)What stacking the Senate does, however, is
A) prevent anyone else from giving out Senate appointments
B) let him bribe a LOT of people and groups
C) prepare for the theoretical future day when another Con party PM can do the same thing he's doing, giving them an unelected and unaccountable majority capable of vetoing any real laws. Because, after all, the failure of the Senate to exercise power is TRADITIONAL, and the Con party motto might as well be "if it wasn't meant to be sploited they should have patched it lol"
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 02:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 04:52 am (UTC).. y'all are making our process look almost sane down here.
I mean it's okay.. we steal presidencies and everything but we don't set it up to be fixed for life. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 06:11 am (UTC)But it's all part of being a young country. Actually, the United States was just about this old when we switched to directly electing the members of our upper house.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 06:15 am (UTC)Well, when your legislative and executive branches are illiterates who can't even *spell* "constitution" and who keep doing their best to remove rights from minorities, what do you expect?
(Canadian courts overturn laws less often only because Canada has fewer really stupid laws)
Actually, the United States was just about this old when we switched to directly electing the members of our upper house.
Canada does not *have* an upper house. The Senate is similarly named, but pserves only slighly more than "none" of the same purposes as the US Senate.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 07:11 am (UTC)The Senates of Canada and the United States serve the same essential purposes as the upper house of virtually every other bicameral legislature on Earth; a pompous over-ritualed collection of relatively long-sighted statesmen there to thwart the most capricious whims of the "people's house". Admittedly, ours has a few extra mandates, including originally protecting the rights of the smaller states, and probably does much more filtering than most national bicameral legislatures, and our Senators lost much of their gravitas when they started standing for direct election instead of being appointed by their state's legislature, but at the end of the day it's the same damn thing.
And Canadian courts overturn laws less often because your system has an extremely limited scope for judicial review, as opposed to our ad-hoc full-contact experiment. I'm not sure that we've got the balance right, but I'm not going to be quick to accept the hypothesis that our clothes are dirtier than yours just because we wash ours in public more often.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-12 01:15 pm (UTC)The Senates of Canada and the United States serve the same essential purposes as the upper house of virtually every other bicameral legislature on Earth; a pompous over-ritualed collection of relatively long-sighted statesmen there to thwart the most capricious whims of the "people's house"
The Senate of the USA is a legislative body. Bills are introduced and voted on. Bills can START in the Senate.
The Senate of Canada is a formality. No government has to worry about a bill not passing the Senate - that's like worrying that it won't receive the Queen's Assent. It would have to be an incredibly controversial bill in the first place.
The Senate of the USA is a functioning (argue that word as much as you feel necessary) part of government. The Senate of Canada is a reward for a political job well done.
In practice, the two are pretty much nothing alike.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-13 08:05 am (UTC)