Friday, December 12, 2008

And if you don't like their principles ...: Part 5,921.


Curiously, the very people who dismissed a constitutionally legal political coalition as an outrageous, sleazy, backroom, undemocratic, election-reversing coup d'etat are now defending Stephen Harper's promise-breaking, hypocritical Senate power grab because, quite simply, it's constitutionally legal and that's all that matters so what the fuck is your problem?

I just thought you needed to know that.

P.S. Curiously, the very people who insisted that prorogation was necessary to give people a chance to relax, to chill out, to step back, to take a deep breath and to give cooler heads a chance to prevail are now the same folks who are defending a hypocritical strategy that is absolutely guaranteed to enrage their political opponents even further.

I just thought you needed to know that, too.

16 comments:

Sheena said...

Ontario govt is now claiming that access to information laws are not a right and can be swept away at government whim.

this is fucking terrifying bullshit.

Globe article link

Wayne said...

Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war.

The senators have to agree with senate reform, and be willing to run for election.

The Liberals and NDP/Bloc have nothing in common.

Iggy wanted to invade Iraq/Afghanistan and likes the idea of sleep deprivation and hooding. He is leader now.

Wayne said...

Good old democratic Liberals in action again. Just so funny it hurts.

Sheena said...

Not a partisan thing, Wayne. Harper shitheads pulling the same crap in Ottawa. I don't give a flying fuck what party spouts this idiocy. It needs to be challenged.

wv = ourgst

"our gst persecutes Canadian women for the right of fertility by extracting taxation blood money off our tampon purchases".

Robert McClelland said...

The senators have to agree with senate reform, and be willing to run for election.

The senators can agree to shoot nickels out of their ass for all it matters. Absent a constitutional change Harper's attempt to cosmetically reform the senate will be subject to any future Prime Minister's willingness to follow them.

For example, future Prime Minister Iggy can ignore Alberta's "elected senators" and appoint an Albertan senator by simply picking a name out of a hat if he so chooses.

Wayne said...

Sheena: Not a partisan thing, and then you say Harper Shitheads. It has to be partisan and we have to stack the deck. It is that simple. Sad though.

Robert: I can live with a Prime Minister Iggy as long as he follows his true convictions. Have you read his books? He is more to the right that Harper. When Conservatives and Liberals can work together on Centre Right policies, maybe we can unite.... Canada will thrive.

Sheena said...

Layton shitheads and Iggy/Dion shitheads and McGuinty shitheads.

There.

roblaw said...

"..we have to stack the deck".

No, actually, we don't.

We could, actually, be people of conviction, and say, "look, I believe in an elected Senate, and I'm going to stick to those convictions and take my chances that if I lose power, the Liberals may fill those seats with their cronies.. so be it..

Then, and only then, could we stare Michael Ignatieff or whoever in the face, and say, "You had an option, sir."

Now.. we're just more of the same.

Say it ain't so.

thwap said...

"Canada would thrive"

You stupid dumb-ass. You never have a clue about what you're talking about, but that NEVER stops you.

Your politics stink. Your economics stink. You stink.

Your shithead right-wing policies have brought us international shame, economic disaster, and near-economic collapse.

And we're supposed to listen to your passive-aggressive bullshit and transparent lies?

Fuck you.
Moron.

roblaw said...

..hey, Thwap, don't be coy, tell us how you really feel!

..I don't think we need "centre-right", "centre-left" or anything else that smacks of kool-aid drinking dogma. There are times when "right-wing policy" is needed, and there are times when "left wing policy" is needed. What we truly need is honesty and conviction to just do the right thing, and we're not getting it from anyone right now - it's all a shell game to obtain or keep power..

Sheena said...

Right wing and left wing have no meaning as labels anymore. It has morphed into shorthand FAIL because the actions don't match the words.

roblaw said...

..we won't get better if we don't demand it. Today, I'm on the 'net everywhere, and in letters to my own local paper making that demand.

Mr. Harper, you have an option.

liberal supporter said...

He is more to the right that Harper.
Taken from yesterday's PMO to BT fax I would think. Other BTs were on this theme yesterday.

Harper is being a hypocrite to his own expressed views and his party's current stance by appointing Senators. But that is not a concern for me, he just makes himself look bad.

My sole concern with this is that he will not appoint good Senators. The other theme from the proverbial PMO to BT fax is that the coalition was supposedly going to appoint separatists, media people with no legal qualifications, and horror of horrors, Elizabeth May. Making such false allegations would make it easier to appoint party hacks, religious fanatics and socons, drawn from a pool of unqualified people.

We moan about the ranks of MPs being full of lawyers, but considering that the function of Parliament is to pass laws, it would make sense that lawyers be involved. Even more so for the Senate, which is not even involved in devising laws, simply reviewing so they will stand up in courts. Sniggering about Senator Mansbridge aside, many appointees should be lawyers, and most should have had experience as MPs.

As far as the third theme, "Liberals appoint their cronies", it doesn't excuse Harper. Plus, I for one do not believe that the Senate has been blocking CPC legislation at the behest of Stephane Dion or anyone else. They may amend based on their own principles, but to claim they are mostly conspiring to support someone's agenda in the lower house is ridiculous. Harper can demand they agree to whatever he wants, but they cannot be compelled to do anything once appointed. Just as they cannot be compelled to support their party in the "other place", they cannot be compelled to step down to make way for an elected appointee.

There is no practical leverage, since they won't be running for office again and will retire with a pension. So you can't coerce them. I suspect Harper would learn this the hard way, if it ever came to pass that he wanted to replace his appointees with quasi elected appointees.

roblaw said...

..regarding he un-elected Senate, the comment that "you can't coerce them" is naive. You don't need to "coerce" the converted.. the Supreme Court of Canada clearly reflects the interests and ideals of the Government who appointed them.. and they are completely devoid of direct political pressure..

If we really want to do things differently, we either elect appointees, or have an all-party committee to determine appointees.

liberal supporter said...

..regarding he un-elected Senate, the comment that "you can't coerce them" is naive.
But it's true.

What is so bad about "un-elected"? They are appointed by people who are elected. If "un-elected" is so bad, then we should be moving to a system where all positions down to dogcatcher are elected, and all issues are decided by general referendum. With modern technology we could each be voting on the issues of the day, perhaps on a weekly or monthly basis.

You don't need to "coerce" the converted.. the Supreme Court of Canada clearly reflects the interests and ideals of the Government who appointed them.. and they are completely devoid of direct political pressure..
I think a lot of the CPC caucus would not be quite so lockstep with Harper if they could not be coerced.

As a lawyer, you must have considered the possibilities of you being elevated to the bench some day. Would you feel beholden to anyone, or would you feel much more free to follow your own conscience? In such a situation would you consider yourself as "the converted" so no coercion is necessary, or would you consider yourself your own person, free to think as you wish. I agree you would likely continue to follow viewpoints you have held in the past, but I think there is a world of difference between Senators appointed by a PM of some party and the same PM's backbenchers.

If we really want to do things differently, we either elect appointees, or have an all-party committee to determine appointees.
I like the fact that longevity in control of the lower house creates a kind of bubble stretching into the future that allows people with similar views to be reviewing legislation of future governments.

I admit I might not like it if the radical elements of the right wing were ensconced in there for decades.

All-party committees might be an interesting change. But I think the PM should be the final say. I would want it to be more like the PM is expected to listen to the recommendations of such committees and would be expected to explain if the recommendations were not followed.

Wayne said...

Thwap: "It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people understood each other, they would never agree."
- Charles Baudelaire