I thought there was a chance, but no, the utter arrogance continues . . .

[David Banks]

Lol! I suspect Québec would choose to secede from Canada long before a republic came about.

A second chamber works well in many countries, but the current UK House of Lords is a mess that resulted from the (less than) half baked reforms by the Blair government. What is the current situation in Canada, and what is the plan for reform?

Our non-elected house is called the Senate, and is expected to give "sober second thought" to legislation. All senators are selected by the prime minister.

Wikipedia tells me that:
Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions. Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.
Unquote

A prime minister will usually choose people from his or her own party. So, when there is a national vote to "throw the bums out," we are usually left with a "hangover" in the senate who may try to impede the efforts of a new prime minister. Being unelected has many shortcomings, a significant one being that there is no effective method of removing a senator.

One of the current "scandals" is over senators' expense accounts, where many tens of thousands of dollars had been fraudulently acquired and had to be repaid - except in one case where the prime minister's chief of staff wrote a personal cheque of $90k to an offending senator to try to make the findings of an audit "just go away." Being your own 'police' clearly does not work.

I find the idea of "sober second thought" has merit, and that regional representation is an effective way of recognising the history of the country. However, it needs to be elected, and, if elected, should have more power to effectively block legislation and initiate legislation. However, this does increase the risk of "gridlock."

The New Democratic Party (NDP) - the present main opposition party (the first time they have ever held this position) - have advocated abolishment of the senate for 50 years. Personally, I would support such a policy only if we had proportional representation.

That's all I would like (at least, today).

[David Banks]

A second chamber works well in many countries, but the current UK House of Lords is a mess that resulted from the (less than) half baked reforms by the Blair government.

Your House of Lords "is a mess" -- it can't be true!

Any body which could include "your" Lord Black of Crossharbour (formerly "ours") must surely be performing at peak efficiency.

Do tell me where you think it could be improved - and what mechanisms could be used to effect such changes.

[ducati]

Your House of Lords "is a mess" -- it can't be true!

Any body which could include "your" Lord Black of Crossharbour (formerly "ours") must surely be performing at peak efficiency.

Do tell me where you think it could be improved - and what mechanisms could be used to effect such changes.

All members of both houses should be hereditary. It is well known inherited wealth makes you now what the Rif Raf should do.

[David Banks]

All members of both houses should be hereditary. It is well known inherited wealth makes you now what the Rif Raf should do.

I don't quite follow you. Maybe, you missed getting into Eton.

Remember, the "p" is silent as in "bath."

[ducati]

I don't quite follow you. Maybe, you missed getting into Eton.

Remember, the "p" is silent as in "bath."

How do you know I didn't get into Eaton? As far as I know there is no entrance exam. (just a credit check)

[David Banks]

Somebody's going through a "bad spell."

[ducati]

Somebody's going through a "bad spell."

Not bad, just special

[Shaggy]

if you don't like it, go live in a republic.

Knowing you, that would mean a banana republic.....a septic isle.....precisely what the UK has now become

[secrets in symmetry]

All members of both houses should be hereditary. It is well known inherited wealth makes you now what the Rif Raf should do.

There's an argument that hereditary peers are better than politically-appointed life peers because they have a sense of duty and they don't owe anything to a party, and to whichever PM appointed them. There may be elements of truth in this argument, but there's surely a better way.

[secrets in symmetry]

Our non-elected house is called the Senate, and is expected to give "sober second thought" to legislation. All senators are selected by the prime minister.

Wikipedia tells me that:
Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions. Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.
Unquote

A prime minister will usually choose people from his or her own party. So, when there is a national vote to "throw the bums out," we are usually left with a "hangover" in the senate who may try to impede the efforts of a new prime minister. Being unelected has many shortcomings, a significant one being that there is no effective method of removing a senator.

One of the current "scandals" is over senators' expense accounts, where many tens of thousands of dollars had been fraudulently acquired and had to be repaid - except in one case where the prime minister's chief of staff wrote a personal cheque of $90k to an offending senator to try to make the findings of an audit "just go away." Being your own 'police' clearly does not work.

I find the idea of "sober second thought" has merit, and that regional representation is an effective way of recognising the history of the country. However, it needs to be elected, and, if elected, should have more power to effectively block legislation and initiate legislation. However, this does increase the risk of "gridlock."

The New Democratic Party (NDP) - the present main opposition party (the first time they have ever held this position) - have advocated abolishment of the senate for 50 years. Personally, I would support such a policy only if we had proportional representation.

That's all I would like (at least, today).

That sounds very much like the UK system. We have expense-account scandals, and we have mostly political appointees in the Lords since the Blair government booted out most of the hereditary peers - which was surely a positive step on the road to something better.

The US system of two elected houses is ok, but they have an extra layer (the president) and they have so many checks and balances that so many US administrations have been almost powerless. Their constitution is surely in need of an update. The world has moved on since the US wrote a constitution that aimed to prevent the worst actions of 18th century western European political systems.