Gimbol's diatribe and screed

Layton, abolishing the senate, and liberals walking the electoral plank

I see at least two advantages to this proposal to Layton getting this debate going in Parliament.

-1- He knows, as much as some might assume otherwise, that to eliminate the senate does require a consitutional change. Going to a referendum first rather than say to set up a constitutional roadshow, keeps the process from getting off the rails by being co-opted by every special interest group with an axe to grind. It keeps the scope of the change on reforming or doing away with the senate and once the people have spoken it will be very hard for any government to ignore that, or hide behind a group of experts that apply the golden rule. Those supplying the gold write the rules.

-2- This keeps the issue out of the mushy middle. The conservative party wants to reform that chamber, now the NDP is for doing away with it. That leaves the liberals with no position until they join the debate (an option they have seemed to be very adept at lately), but worse because the only position left, keep it the same appointed, unelected, unequal, not reflective of regional interests, is the only ground unclaimed in this debate. The side of this point that is dangerous for the liberals is that if they don't want to be seen defending a patronage system for party hacks, they have to join a parade that has already started with Layton out front, or the other parade that was started many years ago by reformers. The difficulty is that to go with Layton's position casts Jack as the liberal choice, and to go the other way to reforming the senate validates Layton's contention of a Conservative-liberal coalition, albeit without the tacit approval of the liberal leader. Again, the liberals not leading the debate, but instead playing Johnny come lately.

-3- Having this issue come out like this also gives credence to another couple of points. Coyne wrote right after Harper last spoke before the senate committee that this is part of the dynamic change that once it starts you cannot stop it. It also fits nicely into one of the conservative attack ads on senate reform that asks the question "who supports 45 year terms for unelected senators?"

Due to the above points I'm for this question being added to the ballot next election, but by all means have the debate on the framing of the question. This is sure to out the statists as laking any claim to being so-called "progressives".

Lastly, lets make it two choices, reform or abolish. Retaining a flawed system of prime ministerial patronage won't do. And make it a confidence measure.

Addendum:

Jack might also have another objective in mind. If this gets through Parliament and then is sent on to the Senate, the senator will be faced with the prospect of fish or cut bait. They might just see the only way out as a nonconfidence motion before the debate can take place...you know force an election ASAP by not sitting on their hands. You can do it, all you have to do is rebel against a sitting leader......call it "walking the electoral plank".

Update:

Seems its working already after one day.

Labels: senate reform

posted by gimbol @ 3:52 AM