bjf@utcs.UUCP (03/20/85)
Rather than reform the senate we should examine why it exists. Quite simply
it is a dumping ground for people who have served their party well for many
years and never got elected or lost a close election or retired ...
So the problem becomes what to do with these people. It would be a cruel blow
to put them in private industry after all those years at the public trough. At
present they are put in the senate where they can live out their declining years
in peace and quiet. If we got rid of the senate we would have no place to put
these people. Recently I read somewhere what seems to be the perfect solution.
Bring back honorary peerages
Right now a senator walks into a restaurant and the maitre'd recognizes him
or her and says, "Maurice a table for Senator Smith and companion". Everyone
looks up in the restaurant and says, "Oooh, look it is Senator Smith". They
don't know who Senator Smith is but the person *is* a senator. So basically
taxpayers are paying people so they can get good seats in restaurants. How
simple it would be if instead we gave out honorary peerages like they do in
Australia or New Zealand. With peerages there is no money. It is free to
taxpayers. It solves the problem of getting seats in restaurants (Maurice, a
table for Sir John and companion). In short I think that this idea deserves
serions consideration as a means of senate reform.
--
Bruce Freeman University of Toronto {decvax|ihnp4|utzoo}!utcs!bjfwbell@utcs.UUCP (03/21/85)
Honorary Peerages sounds like a good idea as it costs us nothing,
however I think it might start to become so common that it would
be almost meaningless. Sort of like what QC (Queen's Council) has become..
--
----
University of Toronto Computing Services Warren Bell
UUCP: {cbosgd,decvax,harpo,ihnp4,utcsri,{allegra,linus}!utzoo}!utcs!wbell
BITNET: wbell at utorontohenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/22/85)
Actually, far from providing sinecures for decrepit politicians...
Consider the implications of a law requiring that no politician or
civil servant could work for the government longer than 10 years.
No exceptions.
There is obviously a problem in that places like the NRC, who are
technically civil servants, need permanent staff.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrydave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (03/29/85)
In article <5321@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: ||Actually, far from providing sinecures for decrepit politicians... ||Consider the implications of a law requiring that no politician or ||civil servant could work for the government longer than 10 years. ||No exceptions. || ||There is obviously a problem in that places like the NRC, who are ||technically civil servants, need permanent staff. Apart from the unfairness in certain contexts, which Henry recognizes, how do you define "government" for this purpose? Does it include Crown corporations? What about corporations which are controlled, but not totally owned, by the Crown? Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
atbowler@watmath.UUCP (Alan T. Bowler [SDG]) (04/01/85)
In article <554@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <5321@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >||There is obviously a problem in that places like the NRC, who are >||technically civil servants, need permanent staff. > >Apart from the unfairness in certain contexts, which Henry >recognizes, how do you define "government" for this purpose? >Does it include Crown corporations? Since NRC is a Crown corporation obviously he does.