70 % of Canadians are centre to centre left and if the Senate reflects that, good.
I don't want a alt right agenda shoved down our throats like restrictions on abortions or want Alberta Premier Smith is doing to democracy but letting Big Business and Little Business influence municipal and Provincial elections with money unrestricted. Just like the USA. Money and corporations now run oursociety and PP will worsen the problem
Why would you need to warn independent senators not to become a “frenzied opposition” if there was no risk of them becoming so? And isn’t that precisely the argument Anglin and Pennings are making?
Methinks you need to reread the piece. My claim is not that there are no risks of 'inappropriate' obstructionism; rather, I am arguing against the idea that any obstructionism would be a "constitutional crisis", which some seem to be implying is somehow inevitable.
As usual, you are fair in your criticism of my criticism. The point I wanted to highlight is that there are risks to independent senators acting like partisan actors (or “frenzied opposition” in your words) when that is what, presumably, the reforms were intended to avoid. I think the difference is how big that risk is.
Possibly worth noting that Peter Harder — Trudeau's first government representative in the Senate -- foresaw this debate and made the case for restraint six years ago: https://senate-gro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NJCL39-2Harder.pdf
Quite right. This concern has always been top of mind since the appointments process was reformed.
70 % of Canadians are centre to centre left and if the Senate reflects that, good.
I don't want a alt right agenda shoved down our throats like restrictions on abortions or want Alberta Premier Smith is doing to democracy but letting Big Business and Little Business influence municipal and Provincial elections with money unrestricted. Just like the USA. Money and corporations now run oursociety and PP will worsen the problem
Why would you need to warn independent senators not to become a “frenzied opposition” if there was no risk of them becoming so? And isn’t that precisely the argument Anglin and Pennings are making?
Methinks thou dost concede too much!
Methinks you need to reread the piece. My claim is not that there are no risks of 'inappropriate' obstructionism; rather, I am arguing against the idea that any obstructionism would be a "constitutional crisis", which some seem to be implying is somehow inevitable.
As usual, you are fair in your criticism of my criticism. The point I wanted to highlight is that there are risks to independent senators acting like partisan actors (or “frenzied opposition” in your words) when that is what, presumably, the reforms were intended to avoid. I think the difference is how big that risk is.
I mean, pointing to the literal burning of a legislature, as Anglin and Pennings do, might be a tad over the top!
They may be too hot. And you may be too cold. So I’ll put down a call for Goldilocks!