eyeball Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 What hypocrisy? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Boges Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Posted February 3, 2014 If JT believed in a non-partisan Senate then why did he vote down the motion tabled by the NDP last year. Did he have a "Come to Jesus" moment because of the Senate scandal and the fact that a Liberal was the worst offender? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) no - they're Independent Senators with no attachment to the official Liberal Party caucus. The party affiliation of those newly designated Independent Senators remains their choice... but has no bearing on no longer being included within the official Liberal Party caucus. Why is this so difficult for you to (continue to) grasp?When someone is kicked out of caucus in the House, they're normally kicked out of the party entirely. Trudeau was hoping people would assume this. As long as they're still card-carrying Liberals, they're Liberal Senators. They're not NDP Senators; they're not Conservative Senators; and they're not unaffiliated and therefore independent Senators. They're Liberals and will still have caucus meetings amongst themselves as Liberals, still fundraise for the Liberals, still attend Liberal conventions, etc. Trudeau's gesture is entirely meaningless, as long as they're still allowed to be members of the Liberal Party. Moreover, he voted down the non-partisan senate bill of the NDP. This is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Edited February 3, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
Argus Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 no - they're Independent Senators with no attachment to the official Liberal Party caucus. The party affiliation of those newly designated Independent Senators remains their choice... but has no bearing on no longer being included within the official Liberal Party caucus. Why is this so difficult for you to (continue to) grasp? Maybe because it's a cynical BS ploy that only fools the simpletons... 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 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 When someone is kicked out of caucus in the House, they're normally kicked out of the party entirely. Trudeau was hoping people would assume this. As long as they're still card-carrying Liberals, they're Liberal Senators. They're not NDP Senators; they're not Conservative Senators; and they're not unaffiliated and therefore independent Senators. They're Liberals and will still have caucus meetings amongst themselves as Liberals, still fundraise for the Liberals, still attend Liberal conventions, etc. Trudeau's gesture is entirely meaningless, as long as they're still allowed to be members of the Liberal Party. Moreover, he voted down the non-partisan senate bill of the NDP. This is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. smoke & mirrors? That NDP motion does not speak to removing Senators from party affiliation... and aside from 2 particulars, is most general. Setting aside, that most generalized NDP motion, Trudeau (some 4 months later, or so) comes along and complies with one of the 2 specific particulars of that NDP motion, and you raise concern... you call it "smoke & mirrors" for Trudeau to comply with a part of your favoured NDP motion? I expect the NDP motion was in lieu of actually doing what Trudeau actually did... the NDP not having any Senators certainly has its privileges! Of course, the real 'smoke & mirrors' here is the NDP multiple positions..... which is it, abolish it outright or initiate reforms? Perhaps the NDP should make up its mind - yes? per Hansard moved: That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business. Quote
waldo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 Maybe because it's a cynical BS ploy that only fools the simpletons... so... when Harper did it/does it... are you fooled? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 smoke & mirrors? That NDP motion does not speak to removing Senators from party affiliation... and aside from 2 particulars, is most general. Setting aside, that most generalized NDP motion, Trudeau (some 4 months later, or so) comes along and complies with one of the 2 specific particulars of that NDP motion, and you raise concern... you call it "smoke & mirrors" for Trudeau to comply with a part of your favoured NDP motion? I expect the NDP motion was in lieu of actually doing what Trudeau actually did... the NDP not having any Senators certainly has its privileges! Of course, the real 'smoke & mirrors' here is the NDP multiple positions..... which is it, abolish it outright or initiate reforms? Perhaps the NDP should make up its mind - yes? per Hansard You can go on to attack the NDP all you want, but you know damn well this entire post is a red herring. It does not in any way address the fact that these so-called "independent" Senators are still Liberals. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 You can go on to attack the NDP all you want, but you know damn well this entire post is a red herring. It does not in any way address the fact that these so-called "independent" Senators are still Liberals. By their own admission to boot!!! Just as unLiberal Senator Cowan stated, nothing will change. Quote
waldo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 You can go on to attack the NDP all you want, but you know damn well this entire post is a red herring. It does not in any way address the fact that these so-called "independent" Senators are still Liberals. attack the NDP? This is probably the first time I've been even somewhat critical of the NDP... and its completely in response to your continued posturing. It would seem Trudeau went as far as the very particular mentioned in the NDP motion I quoted (from Hansard). And you have a problem with that? Quote
Boges Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Posted February 3, 2014 By their own admission to boot!!! Just as unLiberal Senator Cowan stated, nothing will change. I wonder if these "independent" Senators will be allowed to retain their Liberal Party membership if they decide to vote lock step with the Conservatives. Quote
waldo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 By their own admission to boot!!! Just as unLiberal Senator Cowan stated, nothing will change. no - again, what has changed, is the newly designated Independent Senators will no longer be able to caucus with the official Liberal Party caucus. Apparently, you believe that's insignificant. Quote
waldo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 I wonder if these "independent" Senators will be allowed to retain their Liberal Party membership if they decide to vote lock step with the Conservatives. do you have any examples where members of either chamber going against a whipped vote have been expelled from a Party? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 attack the NDP? This is probably the first time I've been even somewhat critical of the NDP... and its completely in response to your continued posturing. It would seem Trudeau went as far as the very particular mentioned in the NDP motion I quoted (from Hansard). And you have a problem with that?No. I have a problem with you doing exactly what you criticize other posters of by ignoring the entire point of my comment. The Senators are still Liberals. So describing them as Liberal Senators is perfectly accurate. The only way to make them not Liberal Senators is to remove them from the party, like has happened when people were removed from caucus in the House. Trudeau didn't do that and won't do that. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 no - again, what has changed, is the newly designated Independent Senators will no longer be able to caucus with the official Liberal Party caucus. Apparently, you believe that's insignificant. Former Liberal Senate leader James Cowan believes it to be insignificant too. Quote
waldo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 No. I have a problem with you doing exactly what you criticize other posters of by ignoring the entire point of my comment. The Senators are still Liberals. So describing them as Liberal Senators is perfectly accurate. The only way to make them not Liberal Senators is to remove them from the party, like has happened when people were removed from caucus in the House. Trudeau didn't do that and won't do that. no - I didn't ignore anything you wrote. Those newly minted Independent Senators may... or may not... belong to the Liberal Party. If it gives you comfort, feel free to personally label them "Independent Senators who may... or may not... belong to the Liberal Party". However, when you take that personal solace, please make sure to emphasize those "Independent Senators who may... or may not... belong to the Liberal Party", do not caucus with the official Liberal Party caucus. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 no - I didn't ignore anything you wrote. Those newly minted Independent Senators may... or may not... belong to the Liberal Party. If it gives you comfort, feel free to personally label them "Independent Senators who may... or may not... belong to the Liberal Party". However, when you take that personal solace, please make sure to emphasize those "Independent Senators who may... or may not... belong to the Liberal Party", do not caucus with the official Liberal Party caucus. "I think not a lot will change. I think that there is a perception perhaps that senators in our party and in the other party are under the control of folks on the other side. That's not been the case in our side. We obviously talk, consult with them and we have had the privilege of being part of their caucus up to now. We won't have that anymore. But we'll continue to talk to them and I suspect that not a great deal will change." Quote
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 no - I didn't ignore anything you wrote. Those newly minted Independent Senators may... or may not... belong to the Liberal Party. If it gives you comfort, feel free to personally label them "Independent Senators who may... or may not... belong to the Liberal Party". However, when you take that personal solace, please make sure to emphasize those "Independent Senators who may... or may not... belong to the Liberal Party", do not caucus with the official Liberal Party caucus.May or may not nothing. They're still Liberals. Feel free to recognize that any time. Quote
waldo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 Former Liberal Senate leader James Cowan believes it to be insignificant too. hey now... it seems Independent MP Brent Rathberger sees the 'move as laudable... a positive development': If the Liberal Leader’s move was indeed motivated by an attempt to kick start the long overdue process of Senate reform, then I believe the move is laudable..... in the absence of being able to amend the constitution to hold senate elections, I believe most Canadians would reluctantly settle for a better functioning unelected Senate. The senate was designed to provide sober second thought not to be a warehouse for party bagmen and loyalists. Accordingly, Trudeau’s attempt to depoliticize it, if genuine, is a positive development. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 If the move was an attempt to kickstart reform... the move itself is only laudable insofar as it leads to further reform. And that's all it is. A token gesture of reform that Rathgeber hopes will lead to real reform. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 hey now... it seems Independent MP Brent Rathberger sees the 'move as laudable... a positive development': So? Quote
waldo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 May or may not nothing. They're still Liberals. Feel free to recognize that any time. and when you reply to my quote that says exactly that (3 times)... Quote
waldo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 If the move was an attempt to kickstart reform... the move itself is only laudable insofar as it leads to further reform. And that's all it is. A token gesture of reform that Rathgeber hopes will lead to real reform. nice! Does any reform start... somewhere? Somewhere other than NDP calls for abolition? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 This should provide some clarity - Noel Kinsella is the Senate Speaker:: In the end, Kinsella ruled that the Liberal senators remain Liberal senators, despite not sitting in on Trudeau’s caucus meetings. Cowan remains their leader, and that together, they form a caucus that serves as the official Opposition. Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/29/senators_both_independent_and_liberal_says_senate_leader_james_cowan.html Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 This should provide some clarity - Noel Kinsella is the Senate Speaker:: Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/29/senators_both_independent_and_liberal_says_senate_leader_james_cowan.html clarity on what? That, it clarifies directly, as stated, the Independent Senators won't be, "sitting in on Trudeau’s caucus meetings" Quote
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.