The Socialist and the Senate

Jack Layton's out of blue proposal for a referendum on the existence of the Canadian Senate is probably the most interesting thing to happen in federal politics since the end of the Liberal leadership convention.

My first thought is "why?". I mean, you don't need to tell me why from a public policy standpoint: the Senate serves no purpose, and neither the government's current Senate reform plan nor any other one will justify its existence. Moreover, given the difficulty of a constitutional amendment - such an amendment would obviously have to clear the Senate, which tends to have an inflated sense of its own raison d'être, and would also need the unanimous support of the provinces, a good number of which are hoping that a "reformed" Senate would boost their clout - a clear majority of Canadians in all provinces voting to abolish the Senate is about the only way that the Senate would have any chance of being abolished. So I'm entirely on board this idea of a referendum. What I don't really get is why the New Democrats are.

The NDs, especially under Layton, have been all about "working people"'s interests (rather, they've been all about spinning themselves as being about "working people"'s interests - as opposed, presumably, to the interests of the unemployed which, now that I think about it, they also purport to champion). They handled the Martin government very well - Martin came out of that episode looking like a guy who'd do anything to keep his job, while Layton looked like a guy who was able to insert meaningful priorities into a Parliament that was otherwise a giant masturbatory press match. But can you really picture Lunchbucket Joe coming home from work and sitting down for dinner with his wife (who just picked the kids up from the daycare program that the Conservatives are giving them a hundred bucks a month to help pay for) and saying "Boy, I'm glad to have Layton in there pushing for Senate abolition when if Harper had his way the whole session would be about tax cuts and making streets safer"?

I have a few hypothesis, some of which contradict others and none of which is all together satisfying:

1. The NDs are trying to challenge the Conservatives to act like conservatives, in the same way that they spent the last Parliament challenging Liberals to act like liberals. "Look," they're saying, "you claim to be all about saving money, an end to institutionalized patronage, and letting the people decide - here's an opportunity to do all three at once." On the other hand, Conservatives have never been about Senate abolition (one of the few regards in which the NDP is superior to them on democratic reform issues) so, unlike the Liberals, they can oppose the NDP motion with a clear conscience and a consistent position. Besides that, the Conservatives are actually doing something to implement their consistent position (introducing legislation requiring Senators to be elected), which was never really true of the Liberals.

2. The NDs are gambling that the other opposition parties will band with them and pass the motion, thereby embarrassing the government. Even writing it, I know it can't be right. Why would the Liberals give the Conservatives a free ride on the GST cuts, absurd sentencing bills, and the environment but decide to confront them on an issue on which their own record over a million and a half years of government has been non-existent?

3. The NDs are gambling that this is an issue on which the public will agree with them. And, for what it's worth, I think the public *will* agree with them. I suspect that, if the general public ever got mobilized on the Senate, a pretty solid plurality - and probably a majority - would favour abolition (in general, the public's response to the question "Do you want fewer politicians?" is going to be yes). But still, hands up who thinks the next election will be fought on Senate reform.

4. The NDs simply want to see the Senate eliminated, for opportunistic reasons. A Liberal apologist acquaintance of mine is fond of mentioning, whenever the idea of proportional representation is brought up, that the NDs only favour it because it would boost their seat count so much (this acquaintance is, as a matter of course, pretty fond of the old ad hominem). For what it's worth, I don't think that's quite true: I think the NDs have a sincere intellectual commitment to the idea of each MP being little more than a number in a party's column, but that's neither here nor anywhere near here. The NDP doesn't get to appoint Senators, so doesn't it make sense on that basis alone that the NDP would want to turf the Senate? Sort of, I guess. But on the list of things preventing the federal NDs from implementing their agenda, the Senate ranks four hundred and eighteenth, just behind the now-defunct Western Standard. It just doesn't make sense to prioritize it at the level that the NDP has.

5. It's a purely principled move. I'm loathe to believe this, but, of the explanations I can think of, it's the only one that really makes much sense. If that's it, kudos to the NDP, and I hope it's successful.

But I'm still confused.