Failed Conservative Candidates Find New Home...

[cybercoma]

Harper did what he had to do. I don't blame him for appointing Senators. The Senate needs to be reformed, but it's not reformed yet. So, he put people in there.

The problem is that it's in serious bad taste to appoint Senators that literally a couple weeks ago lost an election as MPs. The people in their ridings didn't want them in office, so appointing them as Senators is like a middle finger to those ridings. More to the point, some of these appointees were Senators, stepped down, lost and were RE-appointed. So, the news article that called the Senate a "bull-pen" for Conservatives makes a good comparison and a startling one. In other words, the government has become a joke. The party is going to have whomever it wants there, voters be damned and if they don't get elected, they'll just appoint them to positions.

If this isn't broken, I don't know what is.

[Dave_ON]

I know the Senate needs reform and that all the conservative appointees have promised to adhere to the term limits and reforms... however, where you all as upset when the Liberals appointed failed candidates ?

I also agree the optics aren't good, but my understanding is that he had to do this in order to get an absolute majority before June 2nd. This in order get control of chairs and committees... a good political move on his part IMO.

I'll say it again. "But the Liberals did it too!" is not a good excuse. The CPC were supposed to bring change and accountability not emulate the LPC

[Wild Bill]

I'll say it again. "But the Liberals did it too!" is not a good excuse. The CPC were supposed to bring change and accountability not emulate the LPC

Dave, you're right but it still doesn't change anything. Since they BOTH did it then it becomes irrelevant to choosing between them!

[Remiel]

Dave, you're right but it still doesn't change anything. Since they BOTH did it then it becomes irrelevant to choosing between them!

What is telling is not what the LPC and the CPC both did, but what Harper did and pretty much everyone else did not: appoint only his own party hacks.

[scribblet]

But the Liberals have always done it, they appointed a number of failed candidates, some who failed more than once. Two wrongs don't make a right, but was there the same feeding frenzy then?

I can understand his reasons for doing it as he needed an absolute majority to get the chairs of committees as it's my understanding that once made, they can't be changed until the next election. There was a method to this and a political need (from a conservative point of view). Without the absolute majority the Liberals would still be able to chair committees and stall legislation - I believe.

What's wrong with electing senators (if we don't abolish the senate that is). If they are elected every 4 years then I'm not sure they need to have term limits, if they cannot be elected then at least limit their terms.

[Smallc]

if they cannot be elected then at least limit their terms.

How does that help anything at all?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I am carrying the suggestion to its logical conclusion.

No, you are arguing a slippery slope argument and taking the meaning out of context.

[Evening Star]

But the Liberals have always done it, they appointed a number of failed candidates, some who failed more than once. Two wrongs don't make a right, but was there the same feeding frenzy then?

Of course. What do you think the context was in which Harper made all his legendary attacks on the Senate? Patronage appointments, including appointments to the Senate, were also part of what destroyed the Liberals in 1984.

To be honest, though, I'm having trouble getting at all worked up over this. As PM, it is Harper's job to recommend Senate appointments. He can recommend anyone he wants. If there were some sort of tradition of PMs making non-partisan appointments of distinguished Canadians, this would be pretty appalling. However, the overriding tradition has been one of making partisan patronage appointments so this seems pretty ho-hum to me. Maybe the timing is a little tacky but I don't see it as more than that. I'm actually surprised by the outrage, even coming from people like Jamie Watt.

[Dave_ON]

Dave, you're right but it still doesn't change anything. Since they BOTH did it then it becomes irrelevant to choosing between them!

So you're voting LPC next election? We both know that's not going to happen. I guess I don't understand why people get so upset about the LPC, so far the CPC has done precisely as the LPC before them. The more it changes the more it stays the same. This is why when people throw around words such as "leftist" and "rightwing" in reference to either the LPC or the CPC I laugh, there's precious little difference between the two. What many NDP supporters don't realize is that if the NDP in opposition continues, the same fate will befall that party as well. Ottawa changes an idealist, and consequently the party he/she leads, into a pragmatist. The LPC was the most pragmatic party in history, hence their many years of success. If the CPC continue in this manner, they may be the next "natural governing party of Canada".

[Tilter]

Follow the KISS principle and just scrap the Senate.

You got that right! Next step,no GG, no queen, no Charlie bigears or his horsey wife!

[Evening Star]

I do think the NDP would govern to the left of the LPC/CPC on policy grounds though, if only because they'd need to satisfy their labour/activist base of support. Less far left than their current platform but something more like Doer or Dexter, whose governments have certainly been further left than the federal Liberal and Tory governments of the past 20 years imo. I have no illusions that they would be free of e.g. corruption or partisanship.

So you're voting LPC next election? We both know that's not going to happen. I guess I don't understand why people get so upset about the LPC, so far the CPC has done precisely as the LPC before them. The more it changes the more it stays the same. This is why when people throw around words such as "leftist" and "rightwing" in reference to either the LPC or the CPC I laugh, there's precious little difference between the two. What many NDP supporters don't realize is that if the NDP in opposition continues, the same fate will befall that party as well. Ottawa changes an idealist, and consequently the party he/she leads, into a pragmatist. The LPC was the most pragmatic party in history, hence their many years of success. If the CPC continue in this manner, they may be the next "natural governing party of Canada".

[Remiel]

What are the citations on Liberals re-appointing election losers to the Senate?

Tim Harper seems to think this has not happened since the 19th century:

In becoming the first prime minister since the 19th century to reappoint senators after they lost elections, he managed to draw fire from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and his Nova Scotia counterpart, Darrell Dexter.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/994228--tim-harper-the-senate-is-nothing-like-paris-in-the-spring?bn=1

[Evening Star]

Yeah, on P&P, it was stated yesterday that Harper is the first PM to do this since Sir John A.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Evening Star

[g_bambino]

The people in their ridings didn't want them in office, so appointing them as Senators is like a middle finger to those ridings.

Can you explain the link between the Senate and electoral ridings?

[PIK]

The man is a genius. I love how 2 priemers are so against what harper did, it is part of the plan to reform the senate. Since he needs 7? provinces to get a deal done ,well with those 2 comments made by the premiers, they will have to back his plan for reform ,5 more to go. Harper always comes out on top, just when you think he screwed up big time he shows up everybody. He is really doing this to make the media attack him, which they want to anyways and then they looks bad when he gets the job done.How many times has he been underestimated. He will never join the parties , then he will never be PM, then he will never win a majority......................

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Can you explain the link between the Senate and electoral ridings?

They both represent people in Canada.

Senators represent all of Canada.

MP's represent the riding.

They failed to get elected to represent people in the riding that they live in and should have the best chance to get elected in. The people they live near rejected them.

As a reward of being rejected, they get appointed to Senate. They now represent all of Canada in the Senate, including those ridings.

[noahbody]

Senators represent all of Canada.

Senators are supposed to represent their region.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Senators are supposed to represent their region.

Yeah. if they were elected. But they are appointed. They end up speaking for all of Canada because they actually represent no one.

[cybercoma]

But the Liberals have always done it, they appointed a number of failed candidates, some who failed more than once. Two wrongs don't make a right, but was there the same feeding frenzy then?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Appointing candidates that lost elections is in bad taste. In this case, the timing makes it even more distasteful, since the House hasn't even reconvened yet.

That's not the biggest issue here. What's at contention is using the Senate as a "bull-pen" for party hacks. These Senators resigned to run for Parliament, then lost the election and were RE-appointed after their resignations. Didn't win your riding? That's ok. Here's your Senate seat back. It creates a new dynamic that turns the Senate into a holding pen for candidates that the Prime Minister wants to get elected eventually. It makes a mockery of the entire system.

[noahbody]

Yeah. if they were elected. But they are appointed. They end up speaking for all of Canada because they actually represent no one.

One of the "e's" of senate reform was to make it more effective. As is, it's pretty much full of people loyal to their political party, similar to the American senate. Politics to often ends up stalling or preventing progress.

Though the optics aren't great of the re/appointments, they're really just votes for change. If government becomes more effective/fair, we all win.

[g_bambino]

Senators represent all of Canada.

No, they each represent a particular region of Canada, and that region is not a riding. So, again, what's the connection between the voters in a riding and the appointment of a senator?

[cybercoma]

No, they each represent a particular region of Canada, and that region is not a riding. So, again, what's the connection between the voters in a riding and the appointment of a senator?

Obviously the voters did not think enough of this candidate to elect them to office. For the Prime Minster to turn around and give the person that lost an election their Senate seat back is a slap in the face to the people that didn't want that person as an MP. But, hey. You're right. They're representing the entire region instead of a constituency, so that makes it all better.

[Dave_ON]

Obviously the voters did not think enough of this candidate to elect them to office. For the Prime Minster to turn around and give the person that lost an election their Senate seat back is a slap in the face to the people that didn't want that person as an MP. But, hey. You're right. They're representing the entire region instead of a constituency, so that makes it all better.

So who then should the PM appoint to the senate? Only former and retired MP's the voters did not reject? What about people that have never run for office like Mike Duffy? The voters had no say on him either way, what's your opinion of him? Considering that senators are appointed why do the voters need to have a say in the matter? I don't see how voter input is at all relevant when it comes to senate appointments.

[cybercoma]

So who then should the PM appoint to the senate? Only former and retired MP's the voters did not reject? What about people that have never run for office like Mike Duffy? The voters had no say on him either way, what's your opinion of him? Considering that senators are appointed why do the voters need to have a say in the matter? I don't see how voter input is at all relevant when it comes to senate appointments.

That's exactly the problem. Voter input is not relevant. And for someone that has been trumpeting Senate reform and accountability, this is a bit of a stretch.

[Shakeyhands]

I can't wait to see the ideological log jams myself! Give it 5 years.