Controlling the Senate

Grumpy Old Men

Does anyone on planet Earth (aside from these two guys) really give a toss whether the Conservatives may eventually regain control of the Senate?

Oh the audacity of these Liberals. They think the Senate should do everything humanly possible to thwart the will of the people & block Tory gov’t legislation, but it’s supposed to bow down in feal [sic] submission & rummber [sic] stamp everything a Liberal gov’t would do. The nerve of these people.

Yawn. One presumes that Mikey would be just pleased as punch if a Conservative majority in the Senate routinely thwarted the “will of the people” (whatever that means in this country) and blocked legislation sponsored by the Liberals in parliament. Whatever. Personally, I welcome the prospect of a Conservative controlled Senate. It would be great sport.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Wingnuts

14 responses to “Controlling the Senate

  1. Northern PoV

    The Senate has occasionally fulfilled its sober-second-thought function… current important example that everyone is ignoring:
    If the Senate continues to delay C15 until an election then C15 will die a well deserved death and they will have earned their pay.

    (that’s IF there is an election and IF we are not so dumb as to give Harper another kick at the can and IF we do… IF the spineless Liberals don’t support C15 in its next incarnation … IF you get my drift .)

  2. Ti-Guy

    that’s IF there is an election and IF we are not so dumb as to give Harper another kick at the can and IF we do…

    I’m pretty sure that’s guaranteed, along with yet another record-low voter turnout.

  3. b_nichol

    As Northern PoV says, sometimes the Senate does serve its sober-second-thought function.
    Last year, it was Chuckles McVety’s Bill C-10.
    http://tinyurl.com/3vmu9y

  4. NPoV — Unfortunately, the Liberals are on record as supporting C-15 even though it’s a thoroughly misguided bill just because they don’t want to appear “soft on crime” — the same ridiculous logic that gotten us stuck in Afghanistan at a cost of $20 billion for fear of looking “soft on terrorism”…

  5. The Liberals are hiding behind the unelected Senate Liberals to stop specific “Bills” passed in the HOC they are afraid to challenge. In opposition they can provide and refuse to support the Bills. Instead in committee (behind closed doors) and in the Senate they use their majority without the cameras to subvert the elected MP’s mandate of the General Election.

  6. Ti-Guy

    Unfortunately, the Liberals are on record as supporting C-15 even though it’s a thoroughly misguided bill just because they don’t want to appear “soft on crime”

    Although, that might have been strategic; have the thing die in the Senate.

    It’s not the Liberals’ speculation that they’d appear to be soft on crime but their certainty that they would be painted as soft on crime; by the “Conservatives” and their surrogates in the media.

    This is what you get when you live in a kakistrocracy.

  7. Ti-Guy

    Instead in committee (behind closed doors) and in the Senate they use their majority without the cameras to subvert the elected MP’s mandate of the General Election.

    Tell me: Is it the mandate of the elected government to spread misinformation and lies about the Opposition, quite often using public resources? Until that question is answered, the idea that the MP’s represent popular legitimacy seems, at best, a distraction.

  8. EM

    Anybody who names himself “sense’ must be on a quest to find some. Glad you dropped by and hope you show some “sense” soon and question the current government’s undemocratic attempted destruction of the Senate. Two thirds of Canada’s MPs have a mandate to oppose unacceptable legislation, remember?

  9. Kakistocracy… Great term.

    Yes, you’re quite correct that the Liberals would most certainly be painted as “soft on [insert whatever here]” by our Conservative friends who enjoy nothing more than to suggest that the opposition suffers from a chronic moral turpitude and weakness of will in the face of fearful threats to national or personal security.

    As for the horrible piece of legislation in question, it may well have been a strategic move to condemn it to a quiet and well-deserved oblivion in the Senate. The “other place” is quite good for doing that.

  10. Ti-Guy

    Who’s your favourite kakistocrat? Mine’s Andrew Potter. A less self-aware mediocrity does not exist in Canada.

  11. John Reynolds. The guy is a smarmy, unscrupulous thug.

  12. sapphireandsteel

    Dont mind Canadiansense. They’re just being a salacious catamite.

  13. Actually, what Mr. Sensibility says isn’t entirely wrong, but misses the mark on some key points. For example, the notion that the Conservatives have a “mandate” from the people (that’s somehow being nefariously subverted by our routine process of parliamentary checks and balances) is pretty dopey and mistaken.

  14. I read his comment to mean that the HOC has a mandate from the voters and that legislation should either be passed or killed openly there and parties should take their lumps for doing so. And on that point I wouldn’t disagree.

    I would value the Senate if it was fairly non-partisan, but there seems to be an creeping politicization of the process that doesn’t seem all that different than the Supreme Court process in the U.S. where Presidents try to stack people on their side with an eye to retaining influence even after they leave government. I can’t think of a positive outcome of such a process.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s