[Newsbot]

Title: Conservatives move to cap new senators' term length at eight years
Category: Political
Posted By: hurley_108
Date: 2009-02-18 12:08:24
Canadian

[ridenrain]

Pitty it only works on the new senators but then I guess someone has to lead.

[hurley_108]

I hope this dies like the last time they tried it. This isn't a recipe for senate reform, this is a recipe for a completely dysfunctional senate any time power changes hands.

[raydan]

In the long run, this would lower the average age of a senator to what... 92!

[Proculation]

hurley_108 wrote:

I hope this dies like the last time they tried it. This isn't a recipe for senate reform, this is a recipe for a completely dysfunctional senate any time power changes hands.

Well, it's a start before an elected senate.

[hurley_108]

Proculation wrote:

hurley_108 wrote:

I hope this dies like the last time they tried it. This isn't a recipe for senate reform, this is a recipe for a completely dysfunctional senate any time power changes hands.

Well, it's a start before an elected senate.

No, it's not. It's random, reckless tinkering.

Look at it this way: if this was in place already, Chretien would have completely turned over the senate, at the absolute latest, by 2001. They could have then sat on their hands until 2005, letting the senate dwindle to ~50% occupancy. Martin could have then filled it up in 2005 to full capacity, anticipating the impending fall of his government, with senators which would serve until 2013. The senate would therefore be 50% senators who sit until 2013, and 50% senators who started dropping off in 2006, and wouldn't likely stop until ~October this year. Now depending on the exact numbers, that could mean that Harper would have control in October, or it could mean that he'd only get 50%+1 in 2013, when he'd basically get 100%. And you know the Liberals would have gamed it that way - they were no slouches back then (and won't be again).

So either you get what we've already got (Harper will be able to have 50% by early next year even with the system we have now), or you'll have yet another way for the PM to play partisan games, possibly to greater effect than now.

[Proculation]

That's why we need an elected senate.
But, I think having a cap of 8 years is a good idea.

[hurley_108]

Proculation wrote:

That's why we need an elected senate.

I could go for an elected senate, depending on the details of the elections (I would hope that for a federal body, the elections would be federal, not provincial, as the surrent seantor-in-waiting elections in Alberta are). This would ensure consistency and would forestall inter-provincial conflicts aboutt eh methods in which the senators are elected and their legitimacy.

Quote:

But, I think having a cap of 8 years is a good idea.

Why? What's the advantage? How does it outweigh the fact that a government that sits for 8 years will have named 100% of the senate?

[Proculation]

A cap of 8 years and an elected senate.

[bootlegga]

hurley_108 wrote:

Proculation wrote:

hurley_108 wrote:

I hope this dies like the last time they tried it. This isn't a recipe for senate reform, this is a recipe for a completely dysfunctional senate any time power changes hands.

Well, it's a start before an elected senate.

No, it's not. It's random, reckless tinkering.

Look at it this way: if this was in place already, Chretien would have completely turned over the senate, at the absolute latest, by 2001. They could have then sat on their hands until 2005, letting the senate dwindle to ~50% occupancy. Martin could have then filled it up in 2005 to full capacity, anticipating the impending fall of his government, with senators which would serve until 2013. The senate would therefore be 50% senators who sit until 2013, and 50% senators who started dropping off in 2006, and wouldn't likely stop until ~October this year. Now depending on the exact numbers, that could mean that Harper would have control in October, or it could mean that he'd only get 50%+1 in 2013, when he'd basically get 100%. And you know the Liberals would have gamed it that way - they were no slouches back then (and won't be again).

So either you get what we've already got (Harper will be able to have 50% by early next year even with the system we have now), or you'll have yet another way for the PM to play partisan games, possibly to greater effect than now.

[hurley_108]

Proculation wrote:

A cap of 8 years and an elected senate.

The two necessarily do not go hand in hand. Harper cannot force an elected senate through parliament alone. He has to have a constitutional amendment.

So what advantage does an unelected senate with 8 year terms have over the senate as it currently stands?

[DrJones]

Eliminate the senate!!!

[dino_bobba_renno]

hurley_108 wrote:

Proculation wrote:

A cap of 8 years and an elected senate.

The two necessarily do not go hand in hand. Harper cannot force an elected senate through parliament alone. He has to have a constitutional amendment.

So what advantage does an unelected senate with 8 year terms have over the senate as it currently stands?

Well 8 year terms combined with appointing only provincially elected senators would basically be the primer for a constitutional amendment. How else will the elected senate issue move forwards if nothing is ever done to change the status quo?

[RUEZ]

DrJones wrote:

Eliminate the senate!!!

[ridenrain]

hurley_108 wrote:

I hope this dies like the last time they tried it. This isn't a recipe for senate reform, this is a recipe for a completely dysfunctional senate any time power changes hands.

Like that isn't the case now?
I guess we can't make any changes because none can be perfect..

I don't like this either because it forces the CPC to find new people every 8 years and is just another oportunity for the opposition and the media to pick at it.

This also makes no change to the existing, Liberal dominated senate who's memebers will see the end of days before they step down.

..but I think anything is a step in the right direction to making that damned place work.