There seems to be a misunderstanding in this article that Lord James is a member of the government.
As far as I can tell from his Wikipedia page he is a member of one of the houses of parliament, but has never been a member of government.
As far as I can tell from his Wikipedia page he is a member of one of the houses of parliament, but has never been a member of government.
But you are right; from a practical "man on the street" perspective he is not a member of "the government".
In such an environment where people have little power but have the air and outward appearance of having a lot, I would suspect bizarre speeches aren't uncommon.
You are 100% right in that it is not taken exceptionally seriously, as they are lifetime appointments and most often bestowed as an honour. There is an element of power, as at least from a technical standpoint, the Senate in Canada could block the passage of legislation. It is a "rubber stamp" element of government, yes, but only out of tradition. If for some spectacularly weird reason the Senate decided to wield their power, it would have just as much weight - from a technical standpoint - as the US Senate.
But you are correct in the broad sense typically, once a bill passes the house of commons, it will become a law.
If they do something to piss off the Canadian public, the Prime Minister could use that as an opportunity to push through legislation to change or even abolish the Senate. Harper, our current Prime Minister, talked about Senate reform in his election campaign, and he's not the first to do so, but it's never been urgent enough to actually do anything about.
A big portion of it is the demographic of the Senate. As senate seats are typically honourary appointments, rather than partisan decisions (though there are exceptions), there is typically little reason or desire to rise up and exert their power. Senators include former career politicians, but also public personas of various origin - athletes, entertainers, and others of non-political origin.
I would speculate that is almost out of a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts that senators respect and recognize their role and place in Canadian politics. Another is attendance - only 15 senators out of 105 are required to make quorum, and many senators are almost never found in their seats.
I shouldn't make it seem as though the Canadian senate is merely an automatic stamp of approval; there have been past examples of dissent, discussion, debate, reform, and rejection of bills arriving in the Senate. However, it is generally understood among the public that the Senate acts primarily in a nearly ceremonial capacity, rather than one of actual weight and importance.
especially by themselves
That's very interesting, I don't think Scottish, English or Welsh people use "government" it that way though FWIW. What word does one use for the government if the word government is co-opted for the Cabinet & PM?
Well, you'd be wrong. That's exactly how we use it when we're talking about people. I won't pretend you don't hear the same word used to refer to 'the State' (which is the term we use for the overall apparatus of the State) colloquially, but you can always distinguish from context.
I'm not arguing that the more intellectual echelons such as political scientists don't use it in the described manner however; don't move in those circles.
I never hear people refer to our country [the UK] as "the state" either. I perceive state as including the people (but ours is a [pseudo] democratic state so I'm coloured by that.
It's strange that I've not heard this usage, isn't it?
I just jumped to the first newspaper I thought of (well the 2nd, but paywall ...) and the first story in the UK Politics section that mentioned government (Ctrl+f search on the UK Pol' page).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-...
"The Government's immigration cap should not affect inter-company transfers for global firms, David Cameron said today. "
Well it's not the "cabinet and prime ministers immigration cap". The immigration cap is that [on some level] agreed in parliament, passed by the Lords and implemented by the relevant civil servants. I'm still not seeing it.
Whereabouts in the UK are you all (upvoters) from, what occupations are you in?
That's a really good example. He's defending a policy of the current PM and Cabinet. Of course this has been passed by the parliament - that's how the Westminster system works. If parliament stops passing the policies of the cabinet then the government falls.
"The Government" refers to the Prime Minster and his/her Cabinet. It is supported by other parliamentary members of the ruling parties.
Colloquial usage of the phrase "the government" to refer to the civil service, and to ministries etc (eg, "I work in government" or "you'll need government approval to build that there") is common. As soon as politics is involved, though "The Government" refers to those who actually hold power.
(Disclaimer: I'm Canadian. This is how it works in Canada. There are differences between the Canadian and British systems, but they are much smaller than the differences between the American and British systems).
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949