2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Yes, I don't see any problem with it. This has nothing to do with partisanship. Past non-CPC governments have done it before and I don't have an issue with that either. I don't like the idea of an appointed senate and would love to see it reformed, but until that happens, I see nothing wrong with these appointments. They ran for one position of government and lost. They don't get to sit in the House of Commons as MP's. The people's will was not circumvented. Harper believes that these two are still useful and so they are given positions elsewhere in government.

I'm being totally honest when I say this, but I don't see what your issue is. No offense, but it really does sound like you don't understand the parliamentary process. You realize that a seat in the Senate is not the same as being an MP in the House of Commons, right? Losing an election where you run as an MP has no relation to one's eligibility to be appointed to the Senate.

You know what, just because I disagee with you doesn't mean I don't understand. I know they're different positions and that senators are appointed, if that's your entire point?

That being said, just because senators are appointed doesn't mean that we have to love every choice for the senate.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Forget it. I just hope that Harper appoints Ignatieff to the senate so that I can complain about it being undemocratic and you guys have to defend it.

I'd defend his right to do it for sure. I'd think that it is pretty stupid on his part, but there wouldn't be anything inherently wrong about doing so. I'm guessing you probably used 10th grade civics class as nap time?

[peter12]

All of a sudden, Liberals are pro-Senate reform? WTF?!

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Slava

I understand fully, but thanks. Again the point here isn't that they were appointed....I understand that's how it works and great, the PM can appoint who he wants.

You don't see any issue with the fact that they were defeated three weeks ago and today are appointed as senators? Take off the partisan blinders and tell me that

The only thing I could see being an issue is that 2 of the "new" Senators are actually returning Senators who resigned their seats to run for seats in the House. The rules seems to allow it, and I'm sure it's not the first time it's happened.

The thing is, who would have been a better choice for Harper to choose for those Senate seats? Some person who has faithfully given time and money over the years to support the Conservatives, but never attempted to step up and seek public office?


I don't think many people here would argue against Senate reform, but as it stands, it's a wretched hive of patronage appointments and cronyism.

By choosing a couple of people who ran in the recent election, we know that at least they're not a couple of fossils who are being sent off to pasture to nap through sessions until they turn 75 and start collecting their sweet government pension.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

You know what, just because I disagee with you doesn't mean I don't understand. I know they're different positions and that senators are appointed, if that's your entire point?

That being said, just because senators are appointed doesn't mean that we have to love every choice for the senate.

Who said anything about loving every choice for the Senate? You started all this by proclaiming that the appointment of these two particular senators was a disregard for democracy. Outside of the fact that Senate appointments aren't democratic, how is Harper disregarding democracy with these two appointments any more than with any other Senate appointments. You haven't made that connection and yet, somehow, according to you, I'm the blind partisan.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'd defend his right to do it for sure. I'd think that it is pretty stupid on his part, but there wouldn't be anything inherently wrong about doing so. I'm guessing you probably used 10th grade civics class as nap time?

It might not be inherently wrong, but it is a complete disregard for the voters who rejected the losing candidates.

Again, you can go ahead and bugger off with the comments about my not understanding.....we might not agree on a political party to support, but it doesn't mean that I don't understand the appointment of senators.

[peter12]

People have idiotically short memories. Ever they dramatically lowered the property qualification and centralized the PMO, the Senate has been a toilet for patronage appointments. Harper didn't run on Senate reform, anyone harping on the guy for dumping more partisan crap into the Senate cannot legitimately complain.

That said, the Senate is probably best reformed as an elected body, and not abolished.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Slava

Forget it. I just hope that Harper appoints Ignatieff to the senate so that I can complain about it being undemocratic and you guys have to defend it.

I don't think there is a single person in this thread who doesn't think the Senate is undemocratic. THE CANADIAN SENATE BY ITS VERY NATURE IS UNDEMOCRATIC. No one is elected.

I think everyone here would like an elected Senate, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

It might not be inherently wrong, but it is a complete disregard for the voters who rejected the losing candidates.

Again, you can go ahead and bugger off with the comments about my not understanding.....we might not agree on a political party to support, but it doesn't mean that I don't understand the appointment of senators.

What would your stance be on appointing someone to the Senate after they have previously lost in an election as mayor of a major metropolitan city?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What would your stance be on appointing someone to the Senate after they have previously lost in an election as mayor of a major metropolitan city?

Was the election less than 3 weeks ago? (yes, it matters when it was...)

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Was the election less than 3 weeks ago? (yes, it matters when it was...)

What's the appropriate amount of time that should pass before losing an election and then being given a completely unrelated appointed position in the Senate?

[Calgaryborn]

I do hope that Harper takes the opportunity he has been given with this majority to push the envelop on change a bit. He doesn't have to be in campaign mode for the next couple years. I hope that frees him to govern as a statesman whoes only interest are the best interests of Canada.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Was the election less than 3 weeks ago? (yes, it matters when it was...)

Why does it matter? I just don't understand that part of it...particularly when they were Senators before the election.

[Fire]

Bitter Liberals are always a hoot.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What's the appropriate amount of time that should pass before losing an election and then being given a completely unrelated appointed position in the Senate?

That's a tough call, honestly.

I get that the senate is constantly used as a way for the PM (no matter their political stripe) to fill it full of old supporters, etc. I'm someone who actually thinks that the senate does some very importan work despite being full of appointees who are party faithful more than anything else.

You just have to trust the fact that this has nothing to do with partisanship on my part. If the appointees in question were Liberals, BQ or NDP candidates who were just rejected a few weeks ago my thoughts would be the same. I can't stand patronage appointments to begin with, but a patronage appointment weeks after a defeat is basically indefensible in my view.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why does it matter? I just don't understand that part of it...particularly when they were Senators before the election.

They were just rejected by voters. If they were doing such amazing work in the senate then surely they'd have won? For a PM who wants an elected senators you would think that two senators who re-sign and are defeated in the election would be off the list as potential senators a fortnight later? Frankly, there are hundreds of others he could've chosen....

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

That's a tough call, honestly.

I get that the senate is constantly used as a way for the PM (no matter their political stripe) to fill it full of old supporters, etc. I'm someone who actually thinks that the senate does some very importan work despite being full of appointees who are party faithful more than anything else.

You just have to trust the fact that this has nothing to do with partisanship on my part. If the appointees in question were Liberals, BQ or NDP candidates who were just rejected a few weeks ago my thoughts would be the same. I can't stand patronage appointments to begin with, but a patronage appointment weeks after a defeat is basically indefensible in my view.

That's fine, and you just have to trust that this has nothing to do with partisanship on my part when I say that I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Resolute 14]

Frankly, Slava, I don't believe for a second that your response is anything but partisanship. Especially given your harsh criticisms are always reserved for a single party.

Are the appointments goofy? Yup. Welcome to the Senate of Canada.

For what it's worth, the 15,000 votes Larry Smith got were 15,000 more than Frank Mahovlich got, as one example. At least someone voted for Smith.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Frankly, Slava, I don't believe for a second that your response is anything but partisanship. Especially given your harsh criticisms are always reserved for a single party.

Are the appointments goofy? Yup. Welcome to the Senate of Canada.

For what it's worth, the 15,000 votes Larry Smith got were 15,000 more than Frank Mahovlich got, as one example. At least someone voted for Smith.

Thats just being silly though. Of course I am going to criticize the government over the next 5 years....you aren't actually in favor of every single thing they do are you? You're more opinionated than that!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

That's fine, and you just have to trust that this has nothing to do with partisanship on my part when I say that I don't see anything wrong with it.

I do have to trust you guys on that. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't take a shot at a Liberal PM if they did this, but I can only assume that you wouldn't.