2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

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!

Criticize the government all you want. But don't pretend at neutrality when you lack similar vitriol for the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Criticize the government all you want. But don't pretend at neutrality when you lack similar vitriol for the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens.

I don't have any particular love for any of them right now. It's hard to have much vitriol against the NDP though....they have their heart in the right place, but we jus can't afford it. So I guess that takes care of that as far as I'm concerned.

It's hard to really get a hate on for the Liberals because they really have been irrelevant federally in Alberta for as long as I've been anywhere near voting age.

The green party is a pure protest vote, and I basically just don't care.

We likely all have the same disdain for the BQ. While I think that the separatists are going to gain a lot of momentum over the next few years and that is a bad thing to say the least, who is there to argue about that with on CP?

So we're left with the CPC. A bunch of you guys love them here, and they basically can do no wrong. I like to argue about politics so it's an easy discussion! If you really want to know....I didn't support Chretien either though. I'm trying to remember but I might have voted Liberal federally once in the past decade....which makes all the "bitter Liberal" comments all that much more comical to me. There are things that each if the party does/says that I agree or disagree with, and if you can believe it there are even areas where I think the CPC far surpasses the others.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

So we're left with the CPC. A bunch of you guys love them here, and they basically can do no wrong. I like to argue about politics so it's an easy discussion! If you really want to know....I didn't support Chretien either though. I'm trying to remember but I might have voted Liberal federally once in the past decade....which makes all the "bitter Liberal" comments all that much more comical to me. There are things that each if the party does/says that I agree or disagree with, and if you can believe it there are even areas where I think the CPC far surpasses the others.

Okay, just "bitter" then

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

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....

AS MP'S!!!

I have no idea what their senate work was like...does anyone? Do Senators really do anything one way or the other that matters?

As I said...the Senate is littered with appointees that lost elections...why not the same viotrol towards all of them?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Okay, just "bitter" then

Nah, it's just politics.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

AS MP'S!!!

I have no idea what their senate work was like...does anyone? Do Senators really do anything one way or the other that matters?

As I said...the Senate is littered with appointees that lost elections...why not the same viotrol towards all of them?

Because these guys just lost. Voters rejected them a few weeks ago...how much more clear could it be? Seriously just appoint someone else...the guy who picked out the blue sweater, his voice coach that helps him warm up for the rendition of "Imagine" that he subjects us to, the guy who measured his head for that cowboy hat....whoever. To come out and say you're in favor of elected senators and then quickly appoint two guys who were just defeated to serve in your government is just non-sensical.

I seriously can't believe you guys are even defending the obvious cronyism here though. It really is mind-boggling.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by peter12

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

Kind of comes with being pro-electoral reform. If the House is bad, then it generally goes without saying that the Senate is worse.

Originally Posted by transplant99

I have no idea what their senate work was like...does anyone? Do Senators really do anything one way or the other that matters?

Well, there was that time they killed a bill that had passed through the House.

[Frequitude]

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

So then where exactly were you going with "I can't believe the disregard for democracy they continue to show".

No one is saying they like it. They're calling you out on this ridiculous liberal "antidemocratic" sentiment.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

So then where exactly were you going with "I can't believe the disregard for democracy they continue to show".

No one is saying they like it. They're calling you out on this ridiculous liberal "antidemocratic" sentiment.

The part that is anti-democratic is that these are three candidates who just lost the election. How is the golden safety net of the senate remotely democratic? Sure he can appoint who he likes and that's how the system works, but this I still pretty low.

"it's a shame you were defeated in that unnecessary election we had a couple weeks ago...but no worries. I'll just give you a job in the upper house. Sure I'm in favour of senators being elected, and the people just rejected you as their representative, but I got a majority."

I know that's how it works....doesn't mean I like it.

[transplant99]

The part that is anti-democratic is that these are three candidates who just lost the election. How is the golden safety net of the senate remotely democratic?

Thats the entire point...it isnt. Thats why these guys being appointed, whether or not they just ran an election, has no bearing on anything "democratic".

There is no democracy when it comes to patronage appointments. So why you say this is worse than ANY other appointment of individuals who have lost in elections before is a ludicrous stance. Harper believes these guys are the best available for the job, regardless of what has happened in the recent election...so be it.

I could make the argument that it is better to appoint those who attempted to run for a seat in the house, than to appoint, for example, a long time party adviser who never engaged directly in the process. The upper chamber is full of those as well.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

The part that is anti-democratic is that these are three candidates who just lost the election. How is the golden safety net of the senate remotely democratic? Sure he can appoint who he likes and that's how the system works, but this I still pretty low.

"it's a shame you were defeated in that unnecessary election we had a couple weeks ago...but no worries. I'll just give you a job in the upper house. Sure I'm in favour of senators being elected, and the people just rejected you as their representative, but I got a majority."

I know that's how it works....doesn't mean I like it.

This position just doesnt make any sense. What about if they lost a provincial election, should they not be eligible for a senate position? How about school board trustee, or in the case of the NDP, if they had just lost the vote for high school prom?

I mean, there is no link between an election to be an MP and a senate appointment. There never has been. None of these people lost an election to become a senator, and I'm sure Harper (since the's the ONLY pm who has ever even hinted about democratic reform of the Senate) has required these people to promise to run in an election if their home provinces hold one (exactly like he has with Duffy and Wallin).

This whole attempt to paint Harper as 'undemocratic' is ludicrous in the face of his groundbreaking efforts to bring any semblance of democracy at all to the Senate.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I mean, there is no link between an election to be an MP and a senate appointment. There never has been. None of these people lost an election to become a senator, and I'm sure Harper (since the's the ONLY pm who has ever even hinted about democratic reform of the Senate) has required these people to promise to run in an election if their home provinces hold one (exactly like he has with Duffy and Wallin).

Like I said, he hasn't even attempted to explain why he thinks there is a link between running for MP and being appointed to a Senate seat. Even if there was one, who's to say that people voted against these guys when they ran as MP's anyway? Most people don't even know who their MP is, they just vote for the party they want to win. I've honestly tried to understand Slava's position here, but I just can't make any sense of it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

So we're left with the CPC. A bunch of you guys love them here, and they basically can do no wrong. I like to argue about politics so it's an easy discussion! If you really want to know....I didn't support Chretien either though. I'm trying to remember but I might have voted Liberal federally once in the past decade....which makes all the "bitter Liberal" comments all that much more comical to me. There are things that each if the party does/says that I agree or disagree with, and if you can believe it there are even areas where I think the CPC far surpasses the others.

Liberal or Tory same old story. Kinda reminds me of Mulroney's 1984 campaign where he hammered on Turner's patronage appointments at Trudeau's request and then he proceeded in government to do exactly what he hammered Turner for. The problem really comes down to the fact that our best and brightest do not go into public life. So we're left with sub par leaders and partisan politics. The NDP would become the same way in power too, they are a very 'ends justify the means' party based on the way they have governed in different provinces in the past.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Like I said, he hasn't even attempted to explain why he thinks there is a link between running for MP and being appointed to a Senate seat. Even if there was one, who's to say that people voted against these guys when they ran as MP's anyway? Most people don't even know who their MP is, they just vote for the party they want to win. I've honestly tried to understand Slava's position here, but I just can't make any sense of it.

Agreed.

The best analogy I can think of is...

"that player attempted to make the NHL out of training camp but was determined unacceptable by the coach, so the GM sent him to the AHL which is undemocratic....because he wasnt good enough for the NHL just a couple weeks ago"

I just cant wrap my head around the connection of being rejected as MP somehow precludes one as being acceptable as a Senator, especially when the Senate is made up of many people in the exact same boat to begin with.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Agreed.

The best analogy I can think of is...

"that player attempted to make the NHL out of training camp but was determined unacceptable by the coach, so the GM sent him to the AHL which is undemocratic....because he wasnt good enough for the NHL just a couple weeks ago"

I just cant wrap my head around the connection of being rejected as MP somehow precludes one as being acceptable as a Senator, especially when the Senate is made up of many people in the exact same boat to begin with.

This morning it's coming out that it was necessary to appoint these Senators in order to have full control of the Senate comittee chair positions, which controls a lot of the procedure and focus of the Senate's work, and these positions are only allocated after an election. The insinuation is that if the Liberals controlled enough of the chairs they could still manage to block legislation from the house through constant procedural garbage.

Of course, one of the major things that had been blocked by the Liberal Senate was Senate reform to make it more democratic. Touche.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

This morning it's coming out that it was necessary to appoint these Senators in order to have full control of the Senate comittee chair positions, which controls a lot of the procedure and focus of the Senate's work, and these positions are only allocated after an election. The insinuation is that if the Liberals controlled enough of the chairs they could still manage to block legislation from the house through constant procedural garbage.

Of course, one of the major things that had been blocked by the Liberal Senate was Senate reform to make it more democratic. Touche.

Sure, but did he have to appoint candidates who were jsut rejected by voters? If people wanted these folks to represent them, they'd have voted them in. Of course he's going to appoint CPC senators, and I wouldn't expect him to do anything different.

My issue is that the voters just declined these candidates.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

.

My issue is that the voters just declined these candidates.

As MP's. What is the link between an election as MPs and the Senate? Are they serving only the constituency in which they ran, or as Senators are they representing a totally different group of people? (hint: they are)

Why would it be better to appoint someone who didn't want to try and run for public office versus someone who opened themselves to run in an election?

[sevenarms]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, but did he have to appoint candidates who were jsut rejected by voters? If people wanted these folks to represent them, they'd have voted them in. Of course he's going to appoint CPC senators, and I wouldn't expect him to do anything different.

My issue is that the voters just declined these candidates.

In those ridings yes, but other areas of Canada might have voted them in.

[Crazy Bacon Legs]

I don't actually want an elected Senate. I prefer a Senate appointed on principal and thought, rather than political patronage.

My personal opinion on the matter: vacancies in the Senate should be filled by agreement between the three main party leaders. They should personally meet in a private, non-contentious forum and the Prime Minister should submit a list of potential candidates. They would then agree on candidates unanimously, and forward those recommendations to the Governor General, who would appoint their joint candidate. And if nobody on the list passes the smell test, the PM goes back to the drawing board, gets a new list, and they continue selecting.

I believe this will have the following effects: Nominees will not be extreme in any sense, as candidates too far left or right (or party hacks) will be rejected out of hand. Nominees will tend to be of rather high quality. It is my firm belief that when the parties all know they must cooperate and unanimously agree on candidates, they will only choose relatively well educated, non-partisan candidates that will work hard and be worth of respect.

We could then also have these new Senators sit in the Senate without a party designation, as they would be selected by all the major parties. The people of Canada would also have very little to complain about, and might actually develop some respect for the institution.

Most of the issue people have with the Senate is because of what it has become; not what it could be if managed properly.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

My issue is that the voters just declined these candidates.

Does that mean they are not good candidates?

Or are they good candidates but second best in their area?

Or does it mean that it says nothing about the quality or qualifications of the candidate (see: Brosseau/Las Vegas)?