Is Harper in trouble...

[jdobbin]

Harper would have to be caught eating dead babies to be beaten by Dion.

I think Harper is well on his way to defeat.

[g_bambino]

When you say I am "part of the .000001% of the population who strictly construes the constitutional powers of the Senate over the whole concept of 'democracy,'" you demonstrate either a lack of understanding of, or a lack of knowledge about my comments on the Senate's role and abilities, and it is neither inaccurate nor insulting of me to point it out.

The Senate has almost equivalent powers to the House of Commons. (The lone exception being the origination of money bills.)

The vast majority of Canadians either don't know what the true powers of the Senate are or think the Senate lacks the legitimacy to fully exercise the powers it has.

Am I reading you correctly in believing that you are aware of the powers of the senate and do not think they lack legitimacy?

If I'm not, I apologize.

If I am correct, please quit with the insults.

Perhaps we just differ in our definitions of democracy.

[Michael Bluth]

Perhaps we just differ in our definitions of democracy.

But I'm still ignorant?

[g_bambino]

Perhaps we just differ in our definitions of democracy.

But I'm still ignorant?

You know, I never said you were ignorant. I said your comment was. Please, understand the difference.

[Mad_Michael]

The Senate is a nasty hot potato that is electorally ugly for Harper. Ignoring it is the least damaging policy.

As the number of vacancies increases it's only going to get worse. How long can he avoid it?

He can ignore it forever and nothing will change. The Senate is irrelevant and no one seriously cares (except those trying to line up at the pork-trough).

Senator Cools

...praise for anything she says or does makes you suspect in my book. Do you know who she really is?

Who ever said I praised her in any form at all?

You cited her in a favourable way as an influential or authorative opinion.

I mock you for that. Read up about her history. The Senate has had many low points in Canadian history - the swearing in of Ann Cools is one of the lowest.

[g_bambino]

You cited her in a favourable way as an influential or authorative opinion.

I mock you for that.

No, I didn't. I simply cited her as one of the two Senators bringing to light Harper's ignoring of his duty to advise the Govenror General to appoint people to vacant Senate seats. Because I didn't do it in a derisive enough fashion to suit your tastes means nothing.

[normanchateau]

Harper would have to be caught eating dead babies to be beaten by Dion.

I think Harper is well on his way to defeat.

He remains in power and his budget passed in the Commons solely because the separatist party is propping him up. Once the separatists pull the plug, and they will when he stops throwing money and grovelling to Quebec, he's gone.

[ScottSA]

Harper would have to be caught eating dead babies to be beaten by Dion.

I think Harper is well on his way to defeat.

Of course you do. And dithering Dion is the man to do it!

[normanchateau]

Harper would have to be caught eating dead babies to be beaten by Dion.

I think Harper is well on his way to defeat.

Of course you do. And dithering Dion is the man to do it!

I think in a match between Dion and the flipflopping Harper who has yet to flipflop on his social conservatism,

Canadians won't pick the social conservative a second time.

[ScottSA]

Harper would have to be caught eating dead babies to be beaten by Dion.

I think Harper is well on his way to defeat.

Of course you do. And dithering Dion is the man to do it!

I think in a match between Dion and the flipflopping Harper who has yet to flipflop on his social conservatism,

Canadians won't pick the social conservative a second time.

The only manifestation of his social conservatism has been allowing people to keep more of their money through the CTB and GST cuts. It happens to have been a very popular move. If that is representative of his social conservatism, I think you'll be surprised to find that most Canadians are social conservatives. You'll notice of course the absence of trucks pulling up to your door to herd you into churches or troops in the streets or all the panoply of evil conservatism the left was bracing for.

[White Doors]

Harper would have to be caught eating dead babies to be beaten by Dion.

I hope Harper is well on his way to defeat.

~fixed~

[normanchateau]

The only manifestation of his social conservatism has been allowing people to keep more of their money through the CTB and GST cuts. It happens to have been a very popular move. If that is representative of his social conservatism, I think you'll be surprised to find that most Canadians are social conservatives.

There's a huge difference between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. I suspect most Canadians are fiscal conservatives but are not social conservatives.

What do CTB and GST cuts have to do with social conservatism?

In any event, the Conservative Finance Minister in 2006 and again in 2007 was the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada. So the current government is hardly fiscally conservative. Even conservative columnists acknowledge this:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

On July 1, 2006, the personal income tax rate of ALL Canadians was increased by the Harper government. That's not fiscal conservatism either.

So Canada is saddled with a Conservative Prime Minister Harper whose free spending ways are hardly those of a fiscal conservative yet he remains a social conservative in many respects.

[scribblet]

The only manifestation of his social conservatism has been allowing people to keep more of their money through the CTB and GST cuts. It happens to have been a very popular move. If that is representative of his social conservatism, I think you'll be surprised to find that most Canadians are social conservatives. You'll notice of course the absence of trucks pulling up to your door to herd you into churches or troops in the streets or all the panoply of evil conservatism the left was bracing for.

Thinking minds, even liberals, actually realize that Harper is no social conservate, however, it plays to the agenda to continually make incorrect assertions and smears.

Sigh, this is just more obsessive diverting of threads onto the same tired old incorrect refrain.

[normanchateau]

The only manifestation of his social conservatism has been allowing people to keep more of their money through the CTB and GST cuts.

Would you call opposing embryonic stem cell research evidence of social conservatism?

[noahbody]

The only manifestation of his social conservatism has been allowing people to keep more of their money through the CTB and GST cuts.

Would you call opposing embryonic stem cell research evidence of social conservatism?

Is that something on his hidden agenda? Got a quote?

[normanchateau]

The only manifestation of his social conservatism has been allowing people to keep more of their money through the CTB and GST cuts.

Would you call opposing embryonic stem cell research evidence of social conservatism?

Is that something on his hidden agenda? Got a quote?

Who said anything about a hidden agenda? My question was straightforward.

[g_bambino]

Sigh, this is just more obsessive diverting of threads onto the same tired old incorrect refrain.

I'm beginning to see the validity in this statement.

[normanchateau]

I'm beginning to see the validity in this statement.

Then don't respond.

[scribblet]

I'm beginning to see the validity in this statement.

Then don't respond.

Then quit diverting threads

[normanchateau]

I'm beginning to see the validity in this statement.

Then don't respond.

Then quit diverting threads

Then ignore my responses.

[scribblet]

Back to the topic of the Senate:

There's talk that the Senate will block the budget because of the equalization problems.

How would the public react to the Senate bringing down the government. Has it ever actually happened before and would people resent the Senate blocking the will of the Commons? If this happens its the best case yet for getting rid of it.

[normanchateau]

Back to the topic of Harper appointing Senators. Should he have appointed his campaign manager and personal friend to the Senate and made him a Cabinet Minister?

[ScottSA]

The only manifestation of his social conservatism has been allowing people to keep more of their money through the CTB and GST cuts. It happens to have been a very popular move. If that is representative of his social conservatism, I think you'll be surprised to find that most Canadians are social conservatives.

There's a huge difference between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. I suspect most Canadians are fiscal conservatives but are not social conservatives.

What do CTB and GST cuts have to do with social conservatism?

In any event, the Conservative Finance Minister in 2006 and again in 2007 was the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada. So the current government is hardly fiscally conservative. Even conservative columnists acknowledge this:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

On July 1, 2006, the personal income tax rate of ALL Canadians was increased by the Harper government. That's not fiscal conservatism either.

So Canada is saddled with a Conservative Prime Minister Harper whose free spending ways are hardly those of a fiscal conservative yet he remains a social conservative in many respects.

You have misread both my post and the article you quoted. I said that if social conservatism is defined by Harper's actions so far, then most Canadians are social conservatives, because the CTB is family oriented and very popular. You can say that he's a social conservative as a sort of epithet, but it's kind of meaningless unless you can show how that affects the way he runs the country.

The article for it's part doesn't claim that Harper has raised income taxes in the budget...it merely points out that the alleged tax cuts are in fact programs rather than personal income tax cuts. I agree and I'd be much happier to see across the board tax cuts instead of programs, but there are no tax increases, so you're wrong.

As for the grand spending spree, I agree with that too, but Coyne is being a bit disingenuous when he forgets the difference between real dollars and unadjusted dollars.

[g_bambino]

Back to the topic of the Senate:

There's talk that the Senate will block the budget because of the equalization problems.

How would the public react to the Senate bringing down the government. Has it ever actually happened before and would people resent the Senate blocking the will of the Commons? If this happens its the best case yet for getting rid of it.

The Senate tried to block the passage of the GST, though Mulroney got around that by having the Queen create more seats, as per the Constitution Act, 1867. The Senate can send a bill back to the House, but I'm not sure that they can bring down a government.

[capricorn]

The Senate does not have the power to bring down the government.

Unlike the House of Commons, the Senate has no effect in the decision to end the term of the prime minister or of the government. Only the Commons may force the prime minister to tender his resignation, or to recommend the dissolution of Parliament and issue of election writs, by passing a motion of no-confidence or by withdrawing supply. Thus, the Senate's oversight of the government is limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sena...ative_functions