Stephen Harper's new Senate appointments
Gunnair @ Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:33 pm
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
I do not drink lattes. I prefer Tim Horton's.
-J.
-J.
That makes Sudbury more your area of overlordship...
CDN_PATRIOT @ Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:04 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
I do not drink lattes. I prefer Tim Horton's.
-J.
-J.
That makes Sudbury more your area of overlordship...
I get to preside over a giant nickel
-J.
OnTheIce @ Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:12 pm
Just curious, but do we leave the Senate empty until which time we can abolish it?
martin14 @ Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:00 pm
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
Gunnair Gunnair:
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
I do not drink lattes. I prefer Tim Horton's.
-J.
-J.
That makes Sudbury more your area of overlordship...
I get to preside over a giant nickel
-J.
cashing your paycheck already ?
Unsound @ Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:37 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Just curious, but do we leave the Senate empty until which time we can abolish it?
That's the sense I get from people who are trying to castigate Harper over making appointments.
He has however, appointed democratically elected senators where he had the option.
I personally think that's how it's going to have to go if we are to avoid complicated constitutional issues. The provinces can set up their own elections for senators, as Alberta did, and the PM of the day can appoint them when there's an opening. He wouldn't be in any way constitutionaly obligated to appoint the elected senators, but I don't think it would take many such apointments before a precedent would be set which would be very hard politically for any PM to ignore.
Unsound @ Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:38 pm
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
I do not drink lattes. I prefer Tim Horton's.
-J.
-J.
I prefer 7-11 coffee myself, does tha make me more or less a man of the people than you Timmy swillers?
CDN_PATRIOT @ Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:47 pm
Unsound Unsound:
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
I do not drink lattes. I prefer Tim Horton's.
-J.
-J.
I prefer 7-11 coffee myself, does tha make me more or less a man of the people than you Timmy swillers?
Less, because that's convenience store coffee you're slurping
-J.
OnTheIce @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:26 am
Unsound Unsound:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Just curious, but do we leave the Senate empty until which time we can abolish it?
That's the sense I get from people who are trying to castigate Harper over making appointments.
He has however, appointed democratically elected senators where he had the option.
I personally think that's how it's going to have to go if we are to avoid complicated constitutional issues. The provinces can set up their own elections for senators, as Alberta did, and the PM of the day can appoint them when there's an opening. He wouldn't be in any way constitutionaly obligated to appoint the elected senators, but I don't think it would take many such apointments before a precedent would be set which would be very hard politically for any PM to ignore.
What this has turned into is political games.
People here and people in the HoC ignoring the obvious just to make a ill-informed point.
1. Harper has tried numerous times to change the senate going back to 2006. No luck. He keeps getting blocked by the opposition or the Provinces.
2. You can't leave the Senate empty.
Bruce_the_vii @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:10 am
The workings of Parliament are a bit murky. Surely have the extra hand picked staff on hand facilitates the work load in Parliament. I have no proper idea about senate reform.
Lots of comments about tim hortons, not much interest in the senate on this thread.
bootlegga @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:18 am
Unsound Unsound:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Just curious, but do we leave the Senate empty until which time we can abolish it?
That's the sense I get from people who are trying to castigate Harper over making appointments.
He has however, appointed democratically elected senators where he had the option.
I personally think that's how it's going to have to go if we are to avoid complicated constitutional issues. The provinces can set up their own elections for senators, as Alberta did, and the PM of the day can appoint them when there's an opening. He wouldn't be in any way constitutionaly obligated to appoint the elected senators, but I don't think it would take many such apointments before a precedent would be set which would be very hard politically for any PM to ignore.
No need to leave it empty, but it rings hollow when Harper is preaching about Senate reform on one hand and stacking it with partisan appointments on the other. He already has a Conservative majority in the Senate, so is there any need to keep filling it with his friends and lackeys? Not really...all he is doing is ensuring a Conservative majority for his successor.
If he really wants to impress, he should try appointing people from other parties like Chretien did occasionally.
Regarding the 'elections ' in Alberta, they were a joke. Every candidate was conservative, no other parties were represented. Reminds meof the elections they had in the USSR, pick any communist you want. I refused to fill it in in protest in the last election as a result (as did about 20% of Albertans).
Hawkes @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:08 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Unsound Unsound:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Just curious, but do we leave the Senate empty until which time we can abolish it?
That's the sense I get from people who are trying to castigate Harper over making appointments.
He has however, appointed democratically elected senators where he had the option.
I personally think that's how it's going to have to go if we are to avoid complicated constitutional issues. The provinces can set up their own elections for senators, as Alberta did, and the PM of the day can appoint them when there's an opening. He wouldn't be in any way constitutionaly obligated to appoint the elected senators, but I don't think it would take many such apointments before a precedent would be set which would be very hard politically for any PM to ignore.
What this has turned into is political games.
People here and people in the HoC ignoring the obvious just to make a ill-informed point.
1. Harper has tried numerous times to change the senate going back to 2006. No luck. He keeps getting blocked by the opposition or the Provinces.
2. You can't leave the Senate empty.
Well this time he has his majority in the HoC and a very slim majority in the Senate. If he wants to change the Senate he can do so now without blaming the opposition at least. Adding more to the Senate at this point just shows that he was never serious about changing it in the first place.
Yes, you can't leave the Senate empty, but you can open up discussions with the Provinces and bring legislation in to make the changes he wants now that he has his majority.
OnTheIce @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:16 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
No need to leave it empty, but it rings hollow when Harper is preaching about Senate reform on one hand and stacking it with partisan appointments on the other. He already has a Conservative majority in the Senate, so is there any need to keep filling it with his friends and lackeys? Not really...all he is doing is ensuring a Conservative majority for his successor.
If he really wants to impress, he should try appointing people from other parties like Chretien did occasionally.
I'm not sure why you're surprised.
He's not looking to impress. He's looking to fill the senate with people that feel the same way he does; that Senate reform is needed. He's tried to change it numerous times.
FYI, Chretien appointed 72 senators during his tenure, all were Liberal.
Going back to 1921, Liberal PM's have appointed 348 Liberal Senators and 4 non-Liberal or independents.
In fact, the most generous (which isn't saying much) was Robert Bordon, a Conservative. He appointed 3 Liberals to his 57 Conservatives.
OnTheIce @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:21 pm
Hawkes Hawkes:
Well this time he has his majority in the HoC and a very slim majority in the Senate. If he wants to change the Senate he can do so now without blaming the opposition at least. Adding more to the Senate at this point just shows that he was never serious about changing it in the first place.
Yes, you can't leave the Senate empty, but you can open up discussions with the Provinces and bring legislation in to make the changes he wants now that he has his majority.
I don't think he'd be trying 2-3 times to change the Senate if he didn't believe in change.
As you said, he can't leave the Senate empty, so adding people doesn't mean he's not serious, it means he's doing what he's supposed to do.
Liberals, etc, can't blame him for adding people to the senate when it's exactly the type of Senate they want and have blocked from being changed.
Hawkes @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:27 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Hawkes Hawkes:
Well this time he has his majority in the HoC and a very slim majority in the Senate. If he wants to change the Senate he can do so now without blaming the opposition at least. Adding more to the Senate at this point just shows that he was never serious about changing it in the first place.
Yes, you can't leave the Senate empty, but you can open up discussions with the Provinces and bring legislation in to make the changes he wants now that he has his majority.
I don't think he'd be trying 2-3 times to change the Senate if he didn't believe in change.
As you said, he can't leave the Senate empty, so adding people doesn't mean he's not serious, it means he's doing what he's supposed to do.
Liberals, etc, can't blame him for adding people to the senate when it's exactly the type of Senate they want and have blocked from being changed.
I never brought up the Liberals in this so I'm confused as to why you would when replying to my post.
I certainly can blame him if all along he has stated that he needed a majority to bring in legislation like this and then doesn't do it when he has such a majority.
As I stated before, he has the opportunity in front of him to bring about legislation to make the changes he wants as well as opening up dialogue with the Provinces over these changes.
Instead of doing that, he just adds more to the Senate. Now is the time to change it instead of just following through with what every other government has done in the past.
Hawkes @ Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:30 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Hawkes Hawkes:
Well this time he has his majority in the HoC and a very slim majority in the Senate. If he wants to change the Senate he can do so now without blaming the opposition at least. Adding more to the Senate at this point just shows that he was never serious about changing it in the first place.
Yes, you can't leave the Senate empty, but you can open up discussions with the Provinces and bring legislation in to make the changes he wants now that he has his majority.
I don't think he'd be trying 2-3 times to change the Senate if he didn't believe in change.
As you said, he can't leave the Senate empty, so adding people doesn't mean he's not serious, it means he's doing what he's supposed to do.
Liberals, etc, can't blame him for adding people to the senate when it's exactly the type of Senate they want and have blocked from being changed.
Him trying 2-3 times in minority governments doesn't mean he believed in the changes as it was an opportunity to show his base why he needed a majority. It was a perfect opportunity to showcase how he can't get anything done with only a minority.
He now has the majority as he has asked for to make these changes yet doesn't.