Fixed Election Dates on the Way

[Fortunata]

While we are in "reform" mode let's go the next step and fix how many terms one person can be Prime Minister. I say two ought to do it. Think Steve would go for that?

[g_bambino]

Wouldn't opposition party senators in an "effective" Senate view it as their duty as elected representatives to delay even more of the sitting government's bills?

Not to deliberatly stall and delay in order to keep their jobs longer, I think a year or so is plenty of time to give to a 3 clause bill. These old fogeys have the most to lose here.

Considering this is a minority gov't the CPC has made some strides towards democratic reform, we know doesn't want these reforms don't we.

No, the motives would be completely different, of course. I realise that currently, because this bill affects them specifically, senators are stalling on it - that's to be expected, I guess. But, very rarely does the Senate stall very long or cause excessive problem with a bill brought up from the House because they, being appointees, don't want to mess too much with what's been approved by the democratically elected Commons. However, if senators are to be elected and effective, their role will completely change. Empowered with the notion that they've been voted into their seat by electors, they will become more of a challenge to the House, and may be, depending on each chamber's respective political population, more often in a position to send back, amend, or defeat legislation. I imagine this might result in the situation we see between the Congress and Senate in the US: bills constantly being delayed, shipped back and forth, amended, etc., etc. all for political maneuvering, and causing delay in the legislative process.

Frankly, I'm not necessarily for or against the proposed Senate changes yet - I know Australia is also a constitutional monarchy that's had an elected senate since 1901. But, then again, their senate has come to loggerheads with the PM in the past, resulting in a constitutional crisis that ended with the dismissal of the government.

Just wondering what's in store for us with an elected senate.

[normanchateau]

Steve does have that constitutional right to appoint Senators. All Prime Ministers do. What's different here is that Steve campaigned on only appointing elected Senators. That was one of his first strikes, the first promise broken - just one of the lies he told to get elected.

It's only those who don't like Harper, didn't vote for him and never would, who have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

It's only those who blindly love Harper, who would vote for him no matter how much incompetence, social conservatism and hypocrisy he exhibited, who would not have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

[g_bambino]

Steve does have that constitutional right to appoint Senators. All Prime Ministers do. What's different here is that Steve campaigned on only appointing elected Senators. That was one of his first strikes, the first promise broken - just one of the lies he told to get elected.

It's only those who don't like Harper, didn't vote for him and never would, who have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

It's only those who blindly love Harper, who would vote for him no matter how much incompetence, social conservatism and hypocrisy he exhibited, who would not have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

I believe you attempted to doubly strike Harper as a "sleaze" for a) recommending someone he personally knew for appointment to the Senate, and breaking an avowed Conservative campaign promise. Well, a) doesn't qualify him as any more of a sleaze than any other prime minister, as each has done the same for less valid reasons, and fails to bring Harper down as the Conservative Party never included a complete moratorium on Senate appointments without public consultation as a part of their campaign platform.

Perhaps if you consider Fortier's appointment as contrary to some of Harper's previous personal comments on the Senate and how it is filled then you could take some issue with what occurred. However, the clear minded and sane would probably temper their criticism with an analysis of the unalterable circumstances at the time. To not do this, and further attempt to slander with weak argument and unfounded assertions, hints that the beef is with Harper as an individual rather than a particular decision he made.

[normanchateau]

Steve does have that constitutional right to appoint Senators. All Prime Ministers do. What's different here is that Steve campaigned on only appointing elected Senators. That was one of his first strikes, the first promise broken - just one of the lies he told to get elected.

It's only those who don't like Harper, didn't vote for him and never would, who have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

It's only those who blindly love Harper, who would vote for him no matter how much incompetence, social conservatism and hypocrisy he exhibited, who would not have an issue with the appointment of Fortier.

However, the clear minded and sane would probably temper their criticism with an analysis of the unalterable circumstances at the time.

Obviously I forgot that only sane and clear-minded people support the actions of a hypocritical, incompetent prime minister...

[g_bambino]

However, the clear minded and sane would probably temper their criticism with an analysis of the unalterable circumstances at the time.

Obviously I forgot that only sane and clear-minded people support the actions of a hypocritical, incompetent prime minister...

Missed my point completely. I admire your passion, though.

[normanchateau]

However, the clear minded and sane would probably temper their criticism with an analysis of the unalterable circumstances at the time.

Obviously I forgot that only sane and clear-minded people support the actions of a hypocritical, incompetent prime minister...

I admire your passion, though.

Sincere thanks.

[sharkman]

I believe you attempted to doubly strike Harper as a "sleaze" for a) recommending someone he personally knew for appointment to the Senate, and breaking an avowed Conservative campaign promise. Well, a) doesn't qualify him as any more of a sleaze than any other prime minister, as each has done the same for less valid reasons, and fails to bring Harper down as the Conservative Party never included a complete moratorium on Senate appointments without public consultation as a part of their campaign platform.

Perhaps if you consider Fortier's appointment as contrary to some of Harper's previous personal comments on the Senate and how it is filled then you could take some issue with what occurred. However, the clear minded and sane would probably temper their criticism with an analysis of the unalterable circumstances at the time. To not do this, and further attempt to slander with weak argument and unfounded assertions, hints that the beef is with Harper as an individual rather than a particular decision he made.

Exactly, Norman keeps bringing up Harper's votes on homosexual issues. I think Norman is a one issue voter with a big vendetta for Harper.

[normanchateau]

Exactly, Norman keeps bringing up Harper's votes on homosexual issues. I think Norman is a one issue voter with a big vendetta for Harper.

Do you want me to bring up other issues on which his position is socially conservative?

[scribblet]

While we are in "reform" mode let's go the next step and fix how many terms one person can be Prime Minister. I say two ought to do it. Think Steve would go for that?

Probably he would, (and so would I ) but we know what would happen if that were to be brought up don't you. Too American yadda yadda

Edited to ad: if they give the provinces in put into this it would be quite a precedence, they would use it as a bargaining chip for everything. Not a good idea IMO.

Edited May 12, 2007 by scriblett