The Canadian Fluff-o-sphere is all about the new Stephen Harper Senate talking points:
Of idealism, realism, and appointing senators
Long-time Blogging Tory, Springer on "Sort of Political" has written an excellent post on why Prime Minister Stephen Harper has had to appoint senators, despite the fact that before he got elected, he said he wouldn't appoint an unelected senator.
"Thus, it is no mystery that, to achieve even most symbolic reforms to the senate, PM Harper has had to fight tooth and nail every step of the way against a deeply entrenched indifference and/or ambivalence within the greatest part of the Canadian population centered in Ontario and Quebec that is a fact of our nation."
I would add the simple fact that in politics, circumstances change all the time, yet Harper has always had the long-game in sight and ignoring the naysayers (mostly Liberals and Dippers) who say they believe in reforming the senate but have no guts to do it. I've thus termed this condition as "insenaty".
The logic here is, of course, unimpeachable: As a committed opponent of patronage-laden Senate appointments, the only way Stephen Harper can get everyone else on board and stop making patronage-laden Senate appointments is to continue to make patronage-laden Senate appointments until the Opposition is so outraged that they will join with Stephen Harper in discontinuing the practise of patronage-laden Senate appointments.
In related news, Stephen Harper is said to be increasingly frustrated with the Opposition's reluctance in passing legislation that would increase the prison sentences of people who kill police officers so, starting tomorrow, Harper is going to murder one police officer a week until the Opposition finally sees things his way.
And that 2008 legislation raising the Canadian sexual age of consent from 14 to 16 years? You do not want to know how Harper convinced the rest of Parliament to go along.