Short week, short takes, Mr Acting Editor.Take One, Senate: After 56 hours of Budget Debate up the Hill we get 22 more down the Hill. But it has its uses.The first is practical. With two Cabinet Ministers among their number, an opportunity arises to drill down on the departments within their portfolios — and whether that actually happens is another matter. The second? To catch up on anything that was missed or overlooked up top. The third? Our Senate was originally intended to be the body of second, sober reflection, not just of the annual Budget but all Government initiatives. It hasn’t exactly worked out that way over the years as more and more Government and Opposition appointments are used to showcase the young and inexperienced (relatively) who are looking to cut their political teeth and make their mark, all with a view to getting up the Hill. All of which underscores the efficacy of having three independents, appointed by the Governor, who have no political axe to grind, and whose votes, when joined with those of the Opposition, can prompt a Government rethink. Still, wonder how many think our second body is overdue a second look?Take Two, City Hall: I have been asked what I think of recent goings-on at the Corporation of Hamilton. Not much. Understandable controversy has surrounded the sudden haste on the waterfront redevelopment, that ‘secret’ lease, an Ombudsman investigation, topped off by a report (cost unknown) recommending five-figure salaries. Not an impressive list — and from a body which, while democratically elected, was voted in by less than a third of a total 689 registered voters: and to put that in perspective 689 is about half the average size of any of the 36 parliamentary constituencies. Sure their work is important: they are responsible for the maintenance and development of the Island’s most important hub, the City of Hamilton. But, as we also all know, those who pretty well foot the bill have no vote and very little say. If I didn’t know better, I’d say there’s a conspiracy afoot to finally do in the municipalities.Take Three, parliamentary pay: Readers wrote with more comments after last week’s column, questioning (1) whether we actually need that many Cabinet Ministers; (2) whether full-timers end up micro-managers, usurping the role of civil servants; and (3) whether all of them ought to be part-timers, saving us money by keeping their day jobs, chalking up their time as public service. Good observations all — but fat chance, I think, of changes any time soon. Those horses left the stable a long, long time ago.Take Four, Up The Revolution: I’ve been reading about an intriguing new book — ‘The End of Power: From Boardroom to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being In Charge Isn’t What It Used To Be’. Quite the title, huh? The author, journalist and scholar Moises Naim, contends we are in the grip of three global revolutions. (1) The “more” revolution: more of us and with access to more resources; (2) the “mobility” revolution: people and information can move further and faster than ever before; and (3) the “mentality” revolution, people are more educated and more mobile, expectations and aspirations are higher, and they are a lot less deferential than they used to be. His conclusion? Political, economic and social power has become easier to attain but increasingly more difficult to maintain — and to keep.Ring any bells?* Your comments? E-mail jbarritt@ibl.bm.