Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 you can choose to identify/label those Independent Senators any way that gives you personal comfort. They have labelled THEMSELVES as Liberal senators and simply formed a second Liberal caucus. They also all remain members of the Liberal Party of Canada. Those Independent Senators are now free to vote in any way they so.. Yes, just like they were free last week, last month, and last year to do the same. But they were appointed on the basis of their lifelong loyalty to the Liberal party and their Liberal ideological backgrounds. Clearly, your style vs. substance delineation is predicated upon your interpretation of what "being excluded from caucus" means - from a practical standpoint, care to expand on your interpretation? As you interpret, what are the actual impacts/changes to someone being removed from a party's official parliamentary caucus? Give me some of your substance vs. style. There is no impact. I've already stated as much. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) its so cute how you tailored your anecdotal choices. The generalized electorate has not shown itself to be particularly astute in voting based on anything more than voting for party based on a perception of its leader, or expressing a pent-up desire for "change" (typically associated with interpreted "screw-ups"). Throw into that mix a party nomination process that clearly hasn't, in all too many cases, resulted in preferred candidates. Leave that for the lower chamber... rise above your resistance to broader thinking and embrace something beyond the status-quo where, on occasion, 'less than preferred' appointments are being made to the Senate. A very precise, prioritized and formalized criteria for Senate appointments could be structured... you could still choose to believe that party affiliation/ideology would trump all other manner of legitimate criteria. The process could also be structured to have "the person(s)" choosing the appointees formally rationalize the appointments against the formalized criteria. You know, be held formally accountable for those appointments based on measuring against the appointment criteria. I'm inclined to think better appointments would be made. Ivory tower wishful thinking and smarmy drivel with no meaning or substance and no basis in reality. People will appoint those who think like them 10 times out of 10. And that's all there is to it. Edited January 31, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Those Independent Senators are now free to vote in any way they so... independently... choose.They were always free to vote in any way they so independently choose. They're not up for re-election, so their party affiliation is irrelevant. The Prime Minister can't kick them out of the Senate once they're appointed by the Queen of Canada. He has no way of punishing them. It is only other Senators that can do that. Those Senators too are free to vote independently and need not follow the "advice" of the PMO. In fact, it is illegal for the PMO to try and persuade Senators in any way. Quote
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 He and no choice. Unless he wanted a Liberal senate to overrule his legislation then no, he actually didn't. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Looks like the stunt is starting to unravel. Stands to reason that you can't just dictate to lifelong Liberals that sorry, you're no longer a Liberal......and the journalist - Andy Radia is certainly no Tory booster. Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/justin-trudeau-reportedly-furious-senators-using-liberal-brand-153028604.html And there it is indeed. The leader of the party has absolutely no control over the Senators. The only way Trudeau could really make this official is by cutting up their membership cards. He won't do that. So they're still members of the Liberal Party and they're still Senators, like they said Liberal Senators. Quote
PIK Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Well they are fighting back, we are liberal senators and that is not going to change no matter what trudeau says.This is going to back fire on him. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Unless he wanted a Liberal senate to overrule his legislation then no, he actually didn't.Aside from that, he's legally obligated to appoint Senators. It's unclear what would happen if he refused to make the appointment. The democratic portion of our government is the representative assembly of MPs, which gives rise to a Prime Minister. He's not elected directly, but he gets to this position by democratic assemblage. If the democratically elected Prime Minister does not appoint Senators, it creates a conundrum. I'm not sure if it's possible for the Governor General to unilaterally appoint them. In that case, it's the Crown is directly without democratic consultation changing the Senate. We would have a situation on our hands. What is the Queen to do with a government that refuses to govern? Quote
Mighty AC Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 That was a bill passed against the government's wishes. If you want to go further back, you can find when Liberal senators tried to kill a bill which was actually passed by the government - the conservative govenrment, of course. What, no outrage? I believe the senate also killed an abortion bill Mulroney passed... http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/federal-politics/federal-politics-general/mulroney-stacks-senate-to-pass-the-gst.html You are simply providing more evidence to my point that senators should be independent from party leadership. Senators should not be in caucus and an equal, all party committee or some other independent body should be choosing the candidates, not the governing party. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Well they are fighting back, we are liberal senators and that is not going to change no matter what trudeau says.This is going to back fire on him.Not no matter what he says. He can change that, but it would require that he revoke every single one of their membership cards. They would no longer be Liberals at all. He's not going to do that though. It would be disastrous and he would single-handedly destroy Parliament through his foolishness. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 It would be good to hear from g_bambino on this. Sadly, he hasn't posted since December 23. Quote
eyeball Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Gotta wait on the Supreme Court. We gotta wait on a bunch of un-elected people to rule on how we deal with the problem of having a bunch of un-elected rulers? Good luck with that. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
waldo Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 They have labelled THEMSELVES as Liberal senators and simply formed a second Liberal caucus. They also all remain members of the Liberal Party of Canada. bully for them! These newly designated Independent Senators no longer caucus with the official Liberal Party caucus. Of course these newly designated Independent Senators retain whatever party affiliation they previously held. I note you really didn't answer your own highlighted "style vs. substance" reference in regards my question/challenge for you to detail just what you thought being removed from a party's official caucus actually means. For you to simply state "There is no impact" is simply you avoiding the question/challenge. Perhaps the question/challenge should be reshaped for you/for your avoidance... how about, following your "style vs. substance" theme, what does it mean for someone to be included within a party's official caucus. You know, just what happens in that caucus... what comes out of it... just what do they do in that lil' caucus thingee, anyway? Quote
eyeball Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 It's actually worth it's own thread (what happens with the senate now or how do we choose senators now). This thread has pretty much evolved into that now anyways. Why don't you take it up cyber? WWWTT I recall it being suggested that I was listening to the advice of my toaster whenever I talked about incorporating jury-like citizen's assemblies or councils of elders into our governance. Appointing senators along these lines would work just fine for me. My other appliances, like most Canadians, also seem to support the direction Trudeau is leading us towards. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) bully for them! These newly designated Independent Senators no longer caucus with the official Liberal Party caucus. Of course these newly designated Independent Senators retain whatever party affiliation they previously held. I note you really didn't answer your own highlighted "style vs. substance" reference in regards my question/challenge for you to detail just what you thought being removed from a party's official caucus actually means. For you to simply state "There is no impact" is simply you avoiding the question/challenge. No, it's an honest and clear answer. Perhaps clarity confuses you. There is no impact for senators. You think they're not going to know what Liberal party strategy is (what there is of it)? You think they're going to have any less input (not that they ever had much)? You think they won't get their directions from the Liberal Party? Do you still believe in the Easter bunny and tooth fairy? Edited January 31, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 No, it's an honest and clear answer. Perhaps clarity confuses you. There is no impact for senators. You think they're not going to know what Liberal party strategy is (what there is of it)? You think they're going to have any less input (not that they ever had much)? You think they won't get their directions from the Liberal Party? Do you still believe in the Easter bunny and tooth fairy? re: your expressed 'style vs. substance' reference: yes, clearly... your lack of a substantive answer is most stylistic! If being a part of a/the official party caucus holds no significance for Senators, why didn't/doesn't Harper do the same? Why has Harper punted a few persons (HOC & Senate) from the CPC caucus if it's clearly, to you, a meaningless action/gesture? Quote
PIK Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 I have been watching the responses from the NDP and PMO. They were completely unprepared and looked it. You would think that with all the high powered folks in the PMO that somebody would have anticipated that move and be ready with a response. I am not particularly a Justin Trudeau fan but he must have some smart people advising him. This was a brilliant political move that is proving to have the support of most Canadians. I remember just after Justin got the leadership of the party, Stockwell Day warned the other members of his party to NOT take Justin very lightly. He warned that to underestimate Trudeau would be a major error. I suggest that the PMO may begin to start listening to Stockwell. It is not JT that is coming up with this stuff. This is right out of chretiens play book. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
jbg Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 Harper has been making moves to try and "reform" the Senate. But he wants to do it the proper way so it can't get challenged in court. It's just that this Senate scandal has brought the issue front and centre so JT can make hay by doing something like this. Trudeau's grandstanding move still doesn't make him one that people could possibly take seriously. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
On Guard for Thee Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 Chretien made 75. Trudeau made 81. Big yawn. Better check your figures. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 They were always free to vote in any way they so independently choose. They're not up for re-election, so their party affiliation is irrelevant. The Prime Minister can't kick them out of the Senate once they're appointed by the Queen of Canada. He has no way of punishing them. It is only other Senators that can do that. Those Senators too are free to vote independently and need not follow the "advice" of the PMO. In fact, it is illegal for the PMO to try and persuade Senators in any way. Would "in any way" include cutting a 90k check to shut one of them up? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 Yes, of course. It was also illegal for Duffy to take the bribe or even request that the PMO reimburse him. Quote
Argus Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) re: your expressed 'style vs. substance' reference: yes, clearly... your lack of a substantive answer is most stylistic! If being a part of a/the official party caucus holds no significance for Senators, why didn't/doesn't Harper do the same? Why has Harper punted a few persons (HOC & Senate) from the CPC caucus if it's clearly, to you, a meaningless action/gesture? That you either are incapable of understanding an answer, or simply do not like it, has no relationship with the substantive nature of the answer. Removing someone for misconduct, and thus publicly dissasociating the party from them is rather different from pretending to remove an entire group of people as a publicity stunt. Edited February 1, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 Better check your figures. Why? You have better ones? Let's see em. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/compilations/senate/Senate_NominationByPM.aspx Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 Yes, of course. It was also illegal for Duffy to take the bribe or even request that the PMO reimburse him. Or not... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 Removing someone for misconduct, and thus publicly dissasociating the party from them is rather different from pretending to remove an entire group of people as a publicity stunt. where's the pretend? So... when Harper has leveraged the "removal from caucus" option... he means it - he really, really means it! But when another party leader exercises the same option... its a "pretend publicity stunt"! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) That you either are incapable of understanding an answer, or simply do not like it, has no relationship with the substantive nature of the answer. Removing someone for misconduct, and thus publicly dissasociating the party from them is rather different from pretending to remove an entire group of people as a publicity stunt. I see that ol' Waldo has been posting like a demon. He needs to have the last word - substantive or not. Narcissists have lots of stamina - it's obsessively vital they have the last word......did I mention I've had him on IGNORE for quite a while? Good to see you posting regularly again Argus. Edited February 1, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.