Harper Government™ Appoints 7 Senators

[edn88]

I'd be more offended if he appointed 7 Senators to the All-Star Game.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

We know were going to get a bunch of party hacks. Its indecent, but its the way the system works and most people accept that somewhat begrudgingly. So here's where I have an issue. We had a federal election about 7 months ago. Members of all stripes lost that day in various ridings across the country; for one reason or another they were not selected by the people to represent them. Now within that period some of those same people are given jobs as senators, despite people voting for someone else. How can you not see the obvious contradiction here? He wants an elected senate because its democratic and then appoints senators who were just defeated. Its ridiculous.

Your opinion lacks logic; it certainly is no more democratic to appoint someone who refused to face an election that to appoint someone who lost an election.

In fact, there is definately some merit to the consideration that facing public scrutiny during an election process indicates a willingness for public service.

The whole Senate sucks, I agree, but your position lacks any real cohesion.

[zuluking]

Slava was spouting "I'm undecided" during the last federal election. This latest is just as disingenuous saying he's not opposed to Harper, just merely the way Harper has appointed senators using the same (lack of) criteria every other PM in history has had.

It's a tired joke frankly. AB elects senators and they get appointed. No other province does, so it is his prerogative to pick one for them. Big shock that it is someone engaged in the party politics and shares the same views on policy. Duh! So why not try to get someone already gainfully employed, already settled in their geographic region, not currently engaged (actively or otherwise) to take a Senate seat? For what? Why the effort? Why bother? Ethics has nothing to do with it. There is nothing ethically wrong to appoint a second or third place candidate to the Senate. It is a different job, the criteria (or lack of, again) is different. If electoral democracy applied to senators, then AB is the only one getting it right. Instead, AB is in a position of wasting time and money (like when the Liberal gov't ignored the AB senator elections.) AB is the one offside and yet Harper is recognizing the only democratic principles (unenforcable) in play regarding the Senate.

And yet Slava still pisses and moans about Harper's "lack of ethics." What a joke! If Harper held the door open for an old woman, Slava would go on about pandering to the seniors vote.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Good article in the Post on this today. It makes the case well that the proposed reforms may be more trouble than they are worth.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ally-bad-idea/

Great article. It also adds sense to why Harper chose to add to the Senate now. It sounds like he is planning for some changes and needs votes.

I agree with his central argument that such a Senate would cause a loss of power for the PM but, I'm not sure I agree with him that that is all that bad. Most of my life I've lived under federal governments who were elected despite the will of the people of the provinces I live in. They governed like that too. The interests of Quebec and Ontario became the only interests of the PM.

During that time and before it I also seen a expansion of power by the Fed into areas where it should be provincial jurisdiction. Health care is an example of this were the Federal government first takes out taxes then gives them back to the province as transfer payments with strings attached.

Personally I would like to see the Senate appointed by the provincial Premiers and given fixed 6 year terms upon appointment. They then can/should operate for the best interests of their country first and then their province. They should be a small group that levels some of the inbalances in Canada due to size of the Province. Perhaps 2 Senators from the smallest provinces and up to 4 for largest provinces (Quebec & Ontario). Premiers should stagger their appointments so no two Senators in one Province are replaced in the same year.

I wouldn't give the Senate the ability to completely reject legistation. A no vote from them could require Parliament to hold a free vote on the legistation or one that requires a larger percentage to pass. If the PM chose to hold the re-vote and it passed in Parliament it would be law. The Senate could also make recommended changes to the legistation which if the PM agreed could be passed with a simple majority vote. Budget votes should be exempt from Senate rejection.

If we are going to keep a Senate it makes sense to give them power. It also is senseless to have them represent the interests of the political party who appointed them, which is where they are at today. I would rather see them abolished then to remain useless. If the chamber was altered to give more voice to provincial concerns then it would become quite valuable.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Slava was spouting "I'm undecided" during the last federal election. This latest is just as disingenuous saying he's not opposed to Harper, just merely the way Harper has appointed senators using the same (lack of) criteria every other PM in history has had.

It's a tired joke frankly. AB elects senators and they get appointed. No other province does, so it is his prerogative to pick one for them. Big shock that it is someone engaged in the party politics and shares the same views on policy. Duh! So why not try to get someone already gainfully employed, already settled in their geographic region, not currently engaged (actively or otherwise) to take a Senate seat? For what? Why the effort? Why bother? Ethics has nothing to do with it. There is nothing ethically wrong to appoint a second or third place candidate to the Senate. It is a different job, the criteria (or lack of, again) is different. If electoral democracy applied to senators, then AB is the only one getting it right. Instead, AB is in a position of wasting time and money (like when the Liberal gov't ignored the AB senator elections.) AB is the one offside and yet Harper is recognizing the only democratic principles (unenforcable) in play regarding the Senate.

And yet Slava still pisses and moans about Harper's "lack of ethics." What a joke! If Harper held the door open for an old woman, Slava would go on about pandering to the seniors vote.

Well this is where you're just plain wrong. I am actually not complaining about the appointment of all of these senators, only the ones who just ran and lost. You're story might be the more interesting way to frame it, but its just inaccurate.

I was undecided in the last election and frankly if there were an election held today I might still be undecided. Why is that position so offensive to you?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well this is where you're just plain wrong. I am actually not complaining about the appointment of all of these senators, only the ones who just ran and lost. You're story might be the more interesting way to frame it, but its just inaccurate.

I was undecided in the last election and frankly if there were an election held today I might still be undecided. Why is that position so offensive to you?

My post stated plainly that there is nothing ethically wrong with appointing senators who ran and lost as MPs. They are two different positions....clearly. You're (proper use) splitting hairs by complaining about one "type" of appointment versus another. Unless you can point out where it says that ethically you should not appoint a second-place finisher in a federal election of MPs..which you won't, because it doesn't exist.

Your position as undecided did not offend me except for when you prefaced a "slam CPC / Harper" rant as a neutral, unbiased poser. "I'm undecided, but I can't get past how Harper drowns kittens and the CPC is generally evil." - dramatization.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by zuluking

My post stated plainly that there is nothing ethically wrong with appointing senators who ran and lost as MPs. They are two different positions....clearly. You're (proper use) splitting hairs by complaining about one "type" of appointment versus another. Unless you can point out where it says that ethically you should not appoint a second-place finisher in a federal election of MPs..which you won't, because it doesn't exist.

Your position as undecided did not offend me except for when you prefaced a "slam CPC / Harper" rant as a neutral, unbiased poser. "I'm undecided, but I can't get past how Harper drowns kittens and the CPC is generally evil." - dramatization.

God that's embarassing! I hate when people use the wrong your/you're and I was definitely guilty of it in that post!

There is no ethical standard when appointing senators; Harper can appoint whomever he chooses and that might or might not be the elected senators in waiting here in Alberta either. He appoints people and then I get a shot at criticizing the appointments. While there is no real standard for who these people are he should have them face some scrutiny when he makes a poor choice; its the only recourse at all. He might not drown kittens (who can really prove this?) but if he appointed someone with the character of Hitler or Clifford Olsen then surely it would be OK to question that appointment, right? (See, I can get overly dramatic and over the top with my accusations that he would appoint Hitler to the senate....although he probably would before a Liberal)

The problem in politics today is that there isn't much to choose from except for the extremes. The Liberals and CPC aren't very far apart when you really get down to it. They don't do enormously different things in government and when you look at a lot of the CPC policies and actions they're not far from what the Liberals have done in the past. They've implemented some financial policies that I actually think are ridiculous and defy logic, but the Liberals would do the same only on a different policy. They've brought in some new laws/programs that I think are a waste of money and should be stopped, but these in are place of other wasteful and uneeded policies that the Liberals had in the past.

Its somewhat amusing to me because I probably come across way more hardline on here than I am in reality though. I just like arguing about politics!

/ramble

[evman150]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Unless you can point out where it says that ethically you should not appoint a second-place finisher in a federal election of MPs..which you won't, because it doesn't exist.

I think you're missing the point of what "ethics" is.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by evman150

I think you're missing the point of what "ethics" is.

No, I think you are. You're confusing ethics with your opinion or perhaps a broad assumption on your part. Nowhere does it state that these appointments would be considered wrong based on any assumption.