Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Feeding of Old Politicians Message-ID: <1472@dciem.UUCP> Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 18:05:38 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1472 Posted: Tue Mar 19 18:05:38 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 20:14:32 EST References: <982@ubc-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Distribution: can Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 33 Summary: The trouble with the Senate is that they don't know what they CAN do (the new Consitution notwithstanding). When they try do do something constitutional and probably correct (like not passing a borrowing bill until they see what is to be spent), they get tromped on. So their best bet is often to stay quiet. But Senate committees often do a lot of useful work. I think that so long as we have a Senate appointed by the PM, it can serve a useful purpose, in that it gives us a political system with two very different time-constants. The current Liberal Senate reflects a long period in which the country usually was satisfied with Liberal policies (at least not sufficiently dissatisfied to vote them out). Now we had a massive and probably anomalous surge in the other direction that could give a single-chamber Parliament an immediate ability to switch right around. If the Conservatives win two or three elections more, the Senate will become dominated by Conservatives, and that's OK because it will reflect the long-term mood of the country. The main problem with seeing the Senate this way is that they have no POLITICAL credibility, even though they have constitutional power. In practice, they can't do what they are in theory permitted to do. It would be said to be "against the will of the people" to deny Commons bills passage, whereas in fact it just represent a balance between the long-term will and the momentary impulse of the people. Elections have too much peak-sampling error to be the sole reason for having a party in power. Several elections the same can be trusted. Relying on one is just a financial and political convenience. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt