Will Stephen Harper resign over the Senate scandal?

[Smallc]

It is their call...but it does seem pretty straightforward.

[On Guard for Thee]

 

Everyone is tired of the same questions over and over, they have been answered over and over. And if your ilk want to keep it up, you will pay the price.

 

Surely you don't actually believe a question has been answered. I think I will gag if I hear Harper say one more time " I have been very clear" and then reiterate the same talking point over and over and over, which answers nothing. If he did actually answer something perhaps we could move on.

[bleeding heart]

What's the point of that until the Supreme Court has clarified what's constitutionally necessary to make such changes to the Senate? And, even then, an actual election process has to be spelled out to voters in a referendum; it can't simply be "Do you want an elected Senate, yes or no?"

??

I wasn't suggesting he was going to do it this month.

You've laid out some potential roadblocks, not some definite roadblocks.

[eyeball]

What's the point of that until the Supreme Court has clarified what's constitutionally necessary to make such changes to the Senate? And, even then, an actual election process has to be spelled out to voters in a referendum; it can't simply be "Do you want an elected Senate, yes or no?"

Other than dragging reform or abolition out for more decades, would be the point of making the question any more complex?

[Smallc]

Th question could be simple...the ramifications of a yes answer would not be. Implementing a system of elections for the Red Chamber would be complicated and I really can't see an easy consensus.

[PIK]

   

Surely you don't actually believe a question has been answered. I think I will gag if I hear Harper say one more time " I have been very clear" and then reiterate the same talking point over and over and over, which answers nothing. If he did actually answer something perhaps we could move on.

I wonder if the opp did not fight him on reforms years ago, would we have this problem?

[Smallc]

He couldn't do reform without the provinces. He never actually tried to reform the Senate.

[g_bambino]

I wasn't suggesting he was going to do it this month.

And I didn't suggest otherwise. But, the fulfilment of your prediction relies on the outcome of a number of other matters, including--given the time required for what I mentioned--the outcome of the next federal election.

[g_bambino]

Other than dragging reform or abolition out for more decades, would be the point of making the question any more complex?

The point is that people need to know what they're voting for. There are many ways to have an elected Senate, not all of which are to the nation's advantage.

[g_bambino]

I wonder if the opp did not fight him on reforms years ago, would we have this problem?

Aside from what smallc's already mentioned, even some Conservative senators opposed the proposed reforms.

[Scotty]

let me ask you Harper supporters, do you believe Martin was right in calling for a investigation into the Adscam, that his party was being accused of???? If yes, then shouldn't Harper?? Or is there a double standard?

Dumb comparison. Adscam was about spending millions of public dollars on unnecessary work so the Liberal party could get kickbacks.

As far as I know this is about who knew Wright was going to give money to Duffy so he would pay back the public and shut the hell up.

So what? A storm in a teacup, and nothing even against the law. It's just a political farce.

[Scotty]

I hope they keep it up. Canadians want answers and accountability. So ducking answers and attacking other MPs and parties, instead of addressing the issues, makes them look worse and worse each day.

Answers to what? Why don't you enlighten us on what answers you want?

The only one I can see is "Did Harper know about Wright paying money to Duffy" which has already been answered.

What you mean is you want them to keep asking the same question until Harper gives an answer they like better. Maybe if they use up, say, ten thousand hours of question period asking the same question in hundreds of different ways Harper will finally ADMIT that he knew all about it, eh?

[Scotty]

On the weekend, I was watching the former speaking in a debate on government and he said that if a party was unhappy with the leader that they only needed 60% agreement and they could leave that party and start another. So I guess that means if Tory party rates go low like GW Bush's, and the possibility of wiping out the Conservatives, then McKay could leave and re-start the PC if he has 60%. Then Harper can go work in some bar singing. "Yesterday".

McKay? Nobody is going to follow Mckay after his miserable screwups at Defense. And I remind you that the Tories haven't lost any of their popularity due to this so-called scandal.

[waldo]

As far as I know this is about who knew Wright was going to give money to Duffy so he would pay back the public and shut the hell up.

So what? A storm in a teacup, and nothing even against the law. It's just a political farce.

you're clearly not informed - perhaps you should actually read some of this thread before jumping in. In any case, what you've just described, "payment for shutting up"... allegedly... fits the bribery narrative.

[waldo]

The only one I can see is "Did Harper know about Wright paying money to Duffy" which has already been answered.

yes, clearly... Harper Conservative supporters desperately want this to go away. Stifling an audit, influencing a report, negating official due process, resistant to launching a formal inquiry to actually get to the bottom of who knew what, at what time. We've gone from the point of "only Wright knew and no one else... absolutely no one else"... to the point today where there are a 'dozen or so' names included in the mix, including PMO staffers, Senators, lawyers for Harper, the PMO and the Conservative Party of Canada! Ya, ya... "much ado about nothing"!

[waldo]

And I remind you that the Tories haven't lost any of their popularity due to this so-called scandal.

like I said, you really should check some of the related threads out... several polls have been taken and linked to in an assortment of MLW posts... suggesting your popularity claim is suspect.

[GostHacked]

Aside from what smallc's already mentioned, even some Conservative senators opposed the proposed reforms.

Reform wont be needed if these so called 'leaders' actually play by the rules and are held accountable.

[g_bambino]

Reform wont be needed if these so called 'leaders' actually play by the rules and are held accountable.

Who are you referring to?

[GostHacked]

Who are you referring to?

Having trouble following the conversation?

[bleeding heart]

Th question could be simple...the ramifications of a yes answer would not be. Implementing a system of elections for the Red Chamber would be complicated and I really can't see an easy consensus.

Fair enough.

[bleeding heart]

And I didn't suggest otherwise. But, the fulfilment of your prediction relies on the outcome of a number of other matters, including--given the time required for what I mentioned--the outcome of the next federal election.

Yes, on reflection I'm beginning to waffle a bit on my hasty guess.

[Mighty AC]

Reform wont be needed if these so called 'leaders' actually play by the rules and are held accountable.

What would you consider to be the point or role of the senate?

[Topaz]

What would you consider to be the point or role of the senate?

The roll of the senate is to look at the Bills passed in the House and put amends in them if they feel it harms Canadians in any way, especially a majority government, who doesn't really believe in democracy.

[g_bambino]

Having trouble following the conversation?

Nope. Just with vague references to "leaders". Are you having trouble being specific?

[ed.: +]

Edited November 7, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The roll of the senate is to look at the Bills passed in the House and put amends in them if they feel it harms Canadians in any way, especially a majority government, who doesn't really believe in democracy.

No, the "roll" of the Senate is to provide less politicised and regional representation in the federal legislative process. It will, however, normally defer to the elected House of Commons, since it is to that chamber the government is responsible.