Support NeoGAF

[lacinius]

I think the current political climate is too toxic to have rational discussions about abolishing the senate... but given the current PM, that is quite understandable. We should get past the current election, get past the Duffy trial, the fallout of the AG report... and let all that play out the way it will, which should help dissipate the urge to make rash decisions in the heat of the moment.

I would rather we try the path of least resistance first... like why not implement greater oversight... tighter more clearly defined rules... better accountability and transparency... even selection committees with a mandate of choosing and vetting those that are best qualified, and all that sort of thing as just a few examples of some ideas being kicked around. Not sure how easy any of that will be to put in place, but it should be worth a try rather than just jumping straight to trying to pop it out of the constitution.

 

[Silexx]

So listening to the latest Canadaland podcast and they're discussing possible information about Harper's personal life that is sealed in court documents.

It's amazing how many open secrets there are in Ottawa but no one can say anything because of legal hurdles and the need to independently verify all of this.

 

[Boogie]

So listening to the latest Canadaland podcast and they're discussing possible information about Harper's personal life that is sealed in court documents.

It's amazing how many open secrets there are in Ottawa but no one can say anything because of legal hurdles and the need to independently verify all of this.

In my case, it helps to be part of the club that has people following him around everywhere.

 

[Silexx]

In my case, it helps to be part of the club that has people following him around everywhere.

Well, if what I hear is right, your club is complicit in this whole mess.

 

[LevelNth]

A journalist using his credentials to broker deals where he personally profits is unethical as all hell.

I think it's complete and utter nonsense he was let go, and I feel sorry for him that's its escalated to the level that it has.

 

[Boogie]

Well, if what I hear is right, your club is complicit in this whole mess.

I'm sure I have no idea to what you're referring.

 

[Silexx]

I'm sure I have no idea to what you're referring.

Perhaps it's better that way. ;-)

I think it's complete and utter nonsense he was let go, and I feel sorry for him that's its escalated to the level that it has.

It pretty much violates every code of conduct everywhere. He was frolicking with the people he was suppose to cover/scrutinize in order to broker art deals that he would collect a commission from.

It does suck because it's not like he was a guy who had it a long time coming. He was a pretty competent journalist who had made a pretty good name for himself. Sadly, it seems like he probably thought he was worth more than he was making so he saw fit to try and raise his finances by secretly brokering these deals on the side.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Because I think lacinius has the right idea about the Senate -- reform, rather than just get rid of it out of emotion and spite -- I think this:

I want the House of Commons to do whatever it can to end the farce of the Senate not make sad "Oh well, nothing you can do" sounds. At the very least cutting its budget to the bone would be a grand start.

is a bad idea. The Senate has done, and continues to do, some really great work on less public issues, and they have for some time. Just thinking back to the '90s, the Senate was at the forefront of issues related to the landmine ban and children in armed conflict, and they've continued that today. Even on a small scale, they've regularly held up flawed bills and tried to fix them, and they can do that because they're not beholden to electoral politics (and they do that even today, when it's allegedly a toothless old body that just rubberstamps the Harper agenda). The Supreme Court was very clear that they feel the Senate can and should play a major role in our politics, it's just a matter of making the effort. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me,

Also, from the point of view that we have a bicameral legislative system that consists of two independent bodies, your suggestion is kind of horrifying.

Matthewwhatever's opinion on the Senate, despite how horrible it is, is true. The Senate will probably never be abolished. It's too full of Liberal and Conservative goons, and the Premiers know that, so they'll never act on it. At least Brad Wall has some sense. I know the Senate to be useless, full of horrible people who believe themselves to be above the law, and a huge waste of taxpayer money, and I want it abolished, so I will support Mulcair on this, because I would rather a discussion happen than some half-baked "reforms" be enacted that change nothing anyway and we call it a day, which would happen if Harper or Trudeau win the election.

"Liberal and Conservative goons" have nothing to do with it. The Senate isn't being abolished because it's pretty much Constitutionally impossible. On the off-chance you actually want to think about this issue, I'd direct you to s. 6 of the above-linked SCC decision, where it says very clearly that abolishing requires unanimous consent (not just the 7/50 formula). Anyone -- like Mulcair -- who tells you that it's as easy as just making it the centrepiece of a federal election is either lying to you because they think you're gullible enough to believe it, or incredibly stupid themselves...and Mulcair, for all his many, many faults, clearly isn't a stupid man.

According to matthew, the NDP position is a lie because reasons. And the Liberal position is justified because they couldn't kill the bill anyways, so they may as well play along for reasons. It's apparently impossible for any party to make a principled stand, so any that appear to be are just being opportunistic. Personally, I'm all for opportunistic principled stands, so I don't get what the big deal is. The alternative appears to be opportunistic centrist appeals to reactionaries.

Trying to frame the NDP as pro-C51 right now is bizarre, but there sure is an attempt being made.

I don't know if the NDP is really for or against, but they've certainly adopted the Conservative playbook of slogans over policy. Couple that with the fact they didn't propose any kind of sunset clause amendments to the bill -- since that would've required them to engage in policy rather than grandstand -- and...I'm not saying the NDP is necessarily pro-C51, but their lack of interest in the legislative process is concerning.

 

[Azih]

Calling the Senate a body in any way independent of the House of Commons is laughable. They are toadies of the Prime Minister of the day by design.

Saying the Senate can't ever be abolished is a nonsensically defeatist attitude. No one is saying it won't be easy. But it's possible. And while the theory of bicameral legislatures has some merit, the reality of it is that it either making legislation way harder than it should be (As in the States) or it's a useless rubberstamp (Canada). Either it's elected in which case it has the same challenges as the other House (States) or it's appointed and citizens can't hold it to account (Canada).

 

[matthewwhatever]

No, they're not - which was the crux of the SCC's argument. There are ways to make the Senate an independent body. Trudeau has put some forward, as have others. Just saying "It's broken, let's get rid of it!" misses the point of why it exists entirely.

 

[Azih]

No, they're not - which was the crux of the SCC's argument. There are ways to make the Senate an independent body. Trudeau has put some forward, as have others. Just saying "It's broken, let's get rid of it!" misses the point of why it exists entirely.

Please see my edit. Non elected Senates are problematic from the lack of accountability to the voting public and an elected one has the same 'issues' as the elected House of Commons. I don't agree with your conviction that electing legislators (As in the House of Commons) is in any way a bad thing anyway.

And whatever the Senate has accomplished is a very very short list of things. It has proven itself to be useless.

 

[maharg]

Because I think lacinius has the right idea about the Senate -- reform, rather than just get rid of it out of emotion and spite -- I think this:



is a bad idea. The Senate has done, and continues to do, some really great work on less public issues, and they have for some time. Just thinking back to the '90s, the Senate was at the forefront of issues related to the landmine ban and children in armed conflict, and they've continued that today. Even on a small scale, they've regularly held up flawed bills and tried to fix them, and they can do that because they're not beholden to electoral politics (and they do that even today, when it's allegedly a toothless old body that just rubberstamps the Harper agenda). The Supreme Court was very clear that they feel the Senate can and should play a major role in our politics, it's just a matter of making the effort. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me,

Also, from the point of view that we have a bicameral legislative system that consists of two independent bodies, your suggestion is kind of horrifying.

The only reform that makes sense is reform that removes their power. They can continue to do committee work and advocacy, but the house should at the very least have a 2/3 veto over it. Hell, I'd support making it so they can't block a bill, only refer it to the supreme court for constitutional testing.

But then it becomes a very expensive political creature for what it achieves.

What's *actually* horrifying is the idea of having two houses elected by different constituencies and both claiming democratic legitimacy. I hope we never have that.

I don't know if the NDP is really for or against, but they've certainly adopted the Conservative playbook of slogans over policy. Couple that with the fact they didn't propose any kind of sunset clause amendments to the bill -- since that would've required them to engage in policy rather than grandstand -- and...I'm not saying the NDP is necessarily pro-C51, but their lack of interest in the legislative process is concerning.

They. Voted. Against. The. Bill.

You have such a weird view on this that I really can't fathom how it makes any sense to you. Whether it's for populist reasons or not, they are the *only* party that is actually against this bill in its entirety. Why would they want a sunset clause? They intend to *repeal* it now. If they win, they can repeal it. If they lose, the Liberals or Conservatives will just renew the sunset anyways. And it's not like the NDP supporting a sunset clause would have made it magically happen.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

My parents were fortunate enough to receive the pamphlet with the aborted foetuses in the mail, and my 9 year old sister was fortunate enough to be enlightened. Who ever thought this was a good strategy?? My family is extra sure to vote Liberal now.

I used to be a Senate abolitionist but I prefer reform now. As it is, we already have our politicians making very short-sighted or tyrannic decisions. Remember that it's an -elected- government that created C-51. Remember that it's an -elected- government that let urban infrastructure fall behind. I'm open to ideas that can patch up the downsides to our democratic system (I don't have any of my own though)

 

[lupinko]

The Senate had a chance to prove their usefulness, they failed miserably. I see no reason for that useless post, it needs to be abolished.

On a related note, Trudeau was answering some questions by protestors in Edmonton regarding C-51: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=404&v=wmLwjjcvIeQ

Needless to say, he was pretty unconvincing.

This is old but I don't see why they keep ragging on Afghanistan considering that was NATO related. Unless they want Canada out of NATO, which they are free to protest for too.

Their concerns are real for C-51 but the whole Afghanistan argument they try to push just screams uniformed and uneducated on that particular matter.

And again C-51 is awful but C-24 is the true disgusting monster, well in my eyes anyway.

 

[maharg]

I used to be a Senate abolitionist but I prefer reform now. As it is, we already have our politicians making very short-sighted or tyrannic decisions. Remember that it's an -elected- government that created C-51. Remember that it's an -elected- government that let urban infrastructure fall behind. I'm open to ideas that can patch up the downsides to our democratic system (I don't have any of my own though)

And it's an *unelected* senate that let both those things happen. Things don't get magically better the more unrepresentative your government is. And IMO, it's actually a *lack* of democratic accountability thanks to FPTP that led to these things, not too much of it. I barely consider our government democratic to begin with at this point.

I went the other way, from reform to more-or-less abolishionist for one simple reason: contrary to popular belief, I think reform is considerably harder than abolition. Reform brings the question of *what* reform. And as you can see in the referendums on electoral reform, there being multiple options for a major reform proposal tends to lead to it being defeated on the premise of no agreement. But if everyone agrees the Senate is a disaster, the one thing you can probably get broad agreement on is probably to throw it out and start again.

I'm also not convinced serious reform, that actually fixes real problems instead of just money problems, is possible without constitutional meddling either anyways.

 

[Silexx]

Hot damn. Preach, Emmett.

 

[matthewwhatever]

You have such a weird view on this that I really can't fathom how it makes any sense to you. Whether it's for populist reasons or not, they are the *only* party that is actually against this bill in its entirety. Why would they want a sunset clause? They intend to *repeal* it now. If they win, they can repeal it. If they lose, the Liberals or Conservatives will just renew the sunset anyways. And it's not like the NDP supporting a sunset clause would have made it magically happen.

I just don't trust them at all to do actually do anything to the bill if they actually did take power. Apart from a few rare occurrences (i.e. Chretien banning corporate donations, the devolution of powers for First Nations governance), governments don't weaken their hands, and unless you're arguing that the NDP is somehow more pure and angelic than the other parties, I doubt that this would be an exception to the rule.

I also think that if you're in opposition, you should consider it your job to make legislation better, not just have a blanket opposition to it. I get that partisanship plays a role -- and I'm certainly as partisan as anyone here -- but it really bothers me that the NDP didn't even attempt to improve the bill before condemning it.

The only reform that makes sense is reform that removes their power. They can continue to do committee work and advocacy, but the house should at the very least have a 2/3 veto over it. Hell, I'd support making it so they can't block a bill, only refer it to the supreme court for constitutional testing.

But then it becomes a very expensive political creature for what it achieves.

What's *actually* horrifying is the idea of having two houses elected by different constituencies and both claiming democratic legitimacy. I hope we never have that.

Agreed 100% on this. I disagree with you on almost everything else about the Senate, but having competing elected legislatures with competing agendas and built-in partisan conflict would only make thing worse.

...which is why I like the idea of the Senate as an unelected body. As the SCC's Senate reference said, there's the potential for it to have the power to think longer-term, without electoral considerations, and I don't think that's a bad thing. You obviously can't remove partisanship from it entirely, but I don't see why we couldn't make Senate appointments like SCC appointments. I think the SCC's commitment to good government should be shared by the legislative branch, and I think the best way to do that while still allowing for the fact we have parties at the House level is with a non-partisan (okay, *less* partisan) Senate.

...

Also, totally unrelated, but is anyone following this whole Chris Alexander/niqab/racist party debacle? There's so much amazing stupidity in it, it's unbelievable. Having a turbaned Sikh MP coming out to announce that religious face coverings were unacceptable, trying to pin policies by Mackenzie King and Borden on the modern liberal party, getting into a Twitter fight with a journalist...I know that Harper loves provoking fights, but even this seems a bit much for him.

 

[Azih]

I just don't trust them at all to do actually do anything to the bill if they actually did take power. Apart from a few rare occurrences (i.e. Chretien banning corporate donations, the devolution of powers for First Nations governance), governments don't weaken their hands, and unless you're arguing that the NDP is somehow more pure and angelic than the other parties, I doubt that this would be an exception to the rule.

By this reasoning you shouldn't trust any party to do anything at all to C51 no matter what they say in any case or situation. Why trust the Liberal Party to modify C-51? or even put in a sunset clause? Or not turn around throw even more powers to CSIS?

If you're ignoring what they're actually saying and just going by 'trust' then the situation devolves to just 'gut feelings' on who is trustworthy or not and policy documents/campaign planks don't matter at all. That's truthy thinking.

but it really bothers me that the NDP didn't even attempt to improve the bill before condemning it.

Who said they didn't?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-51-ndp-outlines-plan-to-scrap-dangerous-provisions-1.3011881

there's the potential for it to have the power to think longer-term, without electoral considerations, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

Potential is the key word here. And how do you unlock this potential? How to make them accountable so they are actually thinking longer term and without electoral considerations? Why can't current Senators think longer-term without electoral considerations. And why not focus on making changes to the House of Commons so it can think longer term and make the Senate superfluous?

 

[matthewwhatever]

Who said they didn't?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-51-ndp-outlines-plan-to-scrap-dangerous-provisions-1.3011881

Potential is the key word here. And how do you unlock this potential? How to make them accountable so they are actually thinking longer term and without electoral considerations? Why can't current Senators think longer-term without electoral considerations. And why not focus on making changes to the House of Commons so it can think longer term and make the Senate superfluous?

1) Holding a press conference in which you say you're going to propose sunset clauses, and then vetoing actual proposed sunset clauses is pretty breathtaking in its audacity. Clearly, though, they realize that more people are going to pay attention to irate performances than actual conduct in committee.

2) How do you propose that? I'm in favour of changes that make MPs less beholden to party leaders, but at the same time, if they have to face the electorate every four years, that's not too conducive to long-term thinking or actions.

 

[maharg]

...which is why I like the idea of the Senate as an unelected body. As the SCC's Senate reference said, there's the potential for it to have the power to think longer-term, without electoral considerations, and I don't think that's a bad thing. You obviously can't remove partisanship from it entirely, but I don't see why we couldn't make Senate appointments like SCC appointments. I think the SCC's commitment to good government should be shared by the legislative branch, and I think the best way to do that while still allowing for the fact we have parties at the House level is with a non-partisan (okay, *less* partisan) Senate.

The tricky thing here is that there's a really easy skill test for the SCC. Do you have the right background in jurisprudence? Note that this is a big part of why Harper hasn't been able to subvert it in the short term, since he can't appoint anyone who wasn't appointed by a Liberal at some point basically, but this might turn around when all Harper's lower court appointees are the only people the Liberals/NDP have available to them.

What similar skill test can you have for the Senate? And how do you then prevent it from being almost completely dominated by the most privileged (ie. wealthy, white, male), who are probably the most likely to achieve the things you want in such a test?

It's such a political hot potato, and the answers that are likely to actually bring true sober second thought and any defence of minority rights against the will of the plurality (or majority, if we ever get PR) will probably be deeply unpopular among the exact same people who are opposed to abolition.

 

[Azih]

1) Holding a press conference in which you say you're going to propose sunset clauses, and then vetoing actual proposed sunset clauses is pretty breathtaking in its audacity. Clearly, though, they realize that more people are going to pay attention to irate performances than actual conduct in committee..

From what I know the NDP didn't want a sunset clause that involved senate review and so y'know opposed it.

And honestly your conviction that voting no to a bill or an amendment is somehow not being involved in the legislative process is very odd. Are the only valid options Yes and 'Yes but...' to not be accused of a 'lack of interest in the legislative process' ? The No vote is there for a very good reason yeah?

 

[gutter_trash]

I'm personally against elected senators.


Although scummy, most senators being long term tend to put partisanship aside and actually think things through.


An elected Senator would mean more partisanship, more short term minded politics in the present without thinking about good longterm solutions.

And having a Bloc Québécois elected Senator would be a big insult to me

If people talk about costs: senatorial elections would be more costly

 

[firehawk12]

Wow, it's sad that there aren't really any satirists left in Canada... but the Senate scandal made the John Oliver show. lol

 

[lupinko]

Wow, it's sad that there aren't really any satirists left in Canada... but the Senate scandal made the John Oliver show. lol

Yep, uploaded too not officially tho.

http://youtu.be/oQaAU38sZC8

 

[matthewwhatever]

Did we know that the first debate is scheduled? And before the writ is actually dropped? Not that the writ-drop has the same impact in a fixed date system, but it still feels weird.

The tricky thing here is that there's a really easy skill test for the SCC. Do you have the right background in jurisprudence? Note that this is a big part of why Harper hasn't been able to subvert it in the short term, since he can't appoint anyone who wasn't appointed by a Liberal at some point basically, but this might turn around when all Harper's lower court appointees are the only people the Liberals/NDP have available to them.

What similar skill test can you have for the Senate? And how do you then prevent it from being almost completely dominated by the most privileged (ie. wealthy, white, male), who are probably the most likely to achieve the things you want in such a test?

It's such a political hot potato, and the answers that are likely to actually bring true sober second thought and any defence of minority rights against the will of the plurality (or majority, if we ever get PR) will probably be deeply unpopular among the exact same people who are opposed to abolition.

While these are certainly valid concerns -- and I really do mean that -- I'd think that coming up with an answer of how to ensure a representative Senate through commission-suggested appointments (

Spoiler

feel the excitement in that phrase!

) would be significantly easier than blowing up the whole system and trying to push a unanimous Constitutional amendment.

 

[Azih]

Who decides who gets to be on the commission?

 

[matthewwhatever]

Why can't it be a multi/non-partisan thing? We have plenty of those - I don't see why it would be any more difficult to create another one. If Elections Canada and the SCC can weigh in on contentious issues in a non-partisan manner, I don't think it would be too hard to come up with a similar system for Senate appointments.

 

[Azih]

The SCC is a judicial branch whose appointments must be judges from lower courts. Elections Canada is a bureaucratic organization of civil servants. Neither of those are even remotely the same as one part of a bicameral legislature through which all legislation must pass.

It's all well and good to talk of a 'Multi/non-partisan thing' but there's no reason to believe that any setup like this wouldn't have the current problem of Senators being the lackeys of the people who got them in.

The base arguments of how a non elected bunch of legislatures could be a good thing in anything other than pure theory leaves me cold.

Realistically speaking any appointed Senator is going to be beholden to the people who pushed to get them appointed. Full stop.

A passive Senate like the one we have in Canada is useless of course but an activist one like the version in the States just doubles the amount of partisanship and rancour and would make it harder to carry out the will of the electorate.

A well running House of Commons makes a Senate superflous. The path to getting closer to that is simple. PR. And Justin Trudeau moved a giant step towards that recently when he vowed to abolish FPTP and replace it with a system in which 'every vote counts'.

 

[Sch1sm]

More Senate issues. Except this time, it isn't money or fraud, it's because Don Meredith had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a teenager. (CBC/Star/Globe and Mail)

The development comes as the Toronto Star reported Wednesday night that an 18-year-old woman alleged she had an inappropriate sexual relationship with Meredith, which began when she was 16.

The Criminal Code defines the age of consent in Canada as 18 if sexual activity occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency.

Meredith, 50, is an ordained minister at a Pentecostal church in Vaughan, Ont. He ran unsuccessfully for the Tories in Toronto Centre in a 2008 byelection.

It just never ends for the Conservatives, does it?

 

[matthewwhatever]

Speaking of never ending for the Conservatives...

James Moore leaving federal politics

I'm starting to think that whatever the polls may be showing, the Conservatives' own internal polling is way, way worse. People like Mackay and Moore must be quitting to avoid the stench of defeat/position themselves as successors for Harper.

 

[BigJonsson]

CTV is saying Industry Minister James Moore won't be running in the next election citing family reasons

 

[gabbo]

What's the count up to now?

 

[matthewwhatever]

The Liberals had a web ad a few weeks ago that said it was something like 32 or 33, if I recall correctly.

EDIT: 50+ total MPs aren't returning, but I can't find the exactly number of Conservative MPs not coming back. Presumably they make up the bulk of that 50.

 

[Silexx]

Speaking of never ending for the Conservatives...

James Moore leaving federal politics

I'm starting to think that whatever the polls may be showing, the Conservatives' own internal polling is way, way worse. People like Mackay and Moore must be quitting to avoid the stench of defeat/position themselves as successors for Harper.

You know, I thought that this was a question worth asking, so I tweeted Dan Gardner (former columnist for the Ottawa Citizen and current editor of Policy Option) and this is what I got back:

No, I don’t think so. The biggest problem is the lack of opportunity for advancement/accomplishment in such a centralized operation.

Same reason they’ve failed to attract many new star candidates despite holding all there perks of power.

So essentially, Harper ran such a tight ship that and kept everyone firmly in place that they started to realize that they were never going to get anywhere so only option were to stay stuck or leave.

 

[gabbo]

You know, I thought that this was a question worth asking, so I tweeted Dan Gardner (former columnist for the Ottawa Citizen and current editor of Policy Option) and this is what I got back:



So essentially, Harper ran such a tight ship that and kept everyone firmly in place that they started to realize that they were never going to get anywhere so only option were to stay stuck or leave.

So really it's a damn if you do situation. It doesn't look good if they come out and say that but not saying anything just makes them look scared, because 'family reasons' is such a stock answer.

 

[firehawk12]

It wasn't all that different under the Liberals in the 90s. I feel like people only stuck around because Martin imploded and the others saw a chance at advancement. The post-Martin leadership race was probably the most open race after the NDP race replacing Layton.

 

[maharg]

The Liberals had a web ad a few weeks ago that said it was something like 32 or 33, if I recall correctly.

EDIT: 50+ total MPs aren't returning, but I can't find the exactly number of Conservative MPs not coming back. Presumably they make up the bulk of that 50.

Wikipedia to the rescue

 

[matthewwhatever]

Neat, thanks. There are some MPs I'm sorry to see go on that list. Irwin Cotler is just an incredible human being (anytime your bio can include "counsel to Nelson Mandela, that's pretty amazing). Libby Davies and Joe Comartin were both very good MPs. Even James Moore and John Baird weren't as thoroughly bad as most of their colleagues. Moore had a few vaguely progressive ideas (though I'll always believe he was looking at porn in the House of Commons, not pictures of his girlfriend on the beach), and Baird was apparently a very good MP.

It wasn't all that different under the Liberals in the 90s. I feel like people only stuck around because Martin imploded and the others saw a chance at advancement. The post-Martin leadership race was probably the most open race after the NDP race replacing Layton.

All these cabinet ministers leaving feels like the opposite of the Liberals around 2003. Then you had people like Rock, Tobin, Manley and Copps all leaving because they assumed either that Martin had built an insurmountable lead and they had no chance of ever becoming leader, or that he was in such a strong position and had such a stranglehold on the Party he was going to be leader for longer than they were willing to wait. This time around, there's no obvious successor to Harper, so you'd think they'd want to stick around and stay in the public eye -- though, obviously, that assumes that Harper is on his way out sometime soon, which may not be the case at all. I'd buy the idea that they're all leaving because they see no chance for upward mobility more if there was someone in a clear position to succeed Harper.

 

[gabbo]

All these cabinet ministers leaving feels like the opposite of the Liberals around 2003. Then you had people like Rock, Tobin, Manley and Copps all leaving because they assumed either that Martin had built an insurmountable lead and they had no chance of ever becoming leader, or that he was in such a strong position and had such a stranglehold on the Party he was going to be leader for longer than they were willing to wait. This time around, there's no obvious successor to Harper, so you'd think they'd want to stick around and stay in the public eye -- though, obviously, that assumes that Harper is on his way out sometime soon, which may not be the case at all. I'd buy the idea that they're all leaving because they see no chance for upward mobility more if there was someone in a clear position to succeed Harper.

There is always Jason Kenney. Friend to immigrants one and all (and their customary dress)

 

[matthewwhatever]

Dean Del Mastro is heading to jail for his Elections Act violations.

 

[gutter_trash]

Dean Del Mastro is heading to jail for his Elections Act violations.

it guts me that with all the dirt on the Cons that they still manage to maintain a solid 30% base that does not waiver

it's like WTF is wrong with this 30% base?

As a Liberal, I'm ready to vote NDP to Block the Bloc.

*It was weird seeing Justin, Mulcair, Duceppe and PKP on the same picture during the St-Jean Bapstiste parade in Montreal. LOL what a weird combo of opposing forces.
PKP has tremendous hate for the Trudeau clan

 

[gabbo]

Dean Del Mastro is heading to jail for his Elections Act violations.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

 

[firehawk12]

BUT THE NDP TOOK MONEY FOR THEIR OWN USE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Azih]

BUT THE NDP TOOK MONEY FOR THEIR OWN USE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mulcair going full PROSECUTOR and getting everyone in this caucus to fight those charges head on is pretty amazing. Trudeau's and Mulcair's styles are pretty different. Playing it safe and trying to be all things to all people is usually something a frontrunner does.

 

[firehawk12]

Yeah, I am impressed with Mulcair as a leader.

I still think the NDP and the Liberals are going to cannibalize each other though. Mulcair isn't going to convince hardcore Libs to vote NDP even if he might be the better man for the job (or ultimately, to fight Harper in an election).

 

[gutter_trash]

Yeah, I am impressed with Mulcair as a leader.

I still think the NDP and the Liberals are going to cannibalize each other though. Mulcair isn't going to convince hardcore Libs to vote NDP even if he might be the better man for the job (or ultimately, to fight Harper in an election).

You can thank Bloc to convince this Liberal voter to vote NDP

I would vote Conservative if it meant stopping the Bloc.

Gilles Duceppe was MP of my riding prior 2008, I don't want him back

 

[matthewwhatever]

Mulcair going full PROSECUTOR and getting everyone in this caucus to fight those charges head on is pretty amazing. Trudeau's and Mulcair's styles are pretty different. Playing it safe and trying to be all things to all people is usually something a frontrunner does.

Prosecutor, eh? Seems more like feigning outrage to avoid paying back the $3 million they stole, but whatever works for you. It definitely makes it seem like there's something to the idea of Mulcair=left-wing version of Harper, since they both understand -- and, I have to admit, the Liberals don't -- that voters care a lot more about looking and sounding strong than they do about policy.

 

[gutter_trash]

the biggest negative outcome of an NDP government would be a clear polarization between Right vs Left which was not much the case in the past between LPC and old PC when Canada was mostly governed moderately

the advent of the new Conservative party that is starkly more right wing than the old PC ratcheted up loony bin antics

Harper wants the Liberal party to disappear because to him, a polarized Canada between Left and Right benefits the Conservatives.

The disappearance of the Liberal party would plunge Canada into a more polarized atmosphere politically.

Those wishing the Liberal party to go away need to seriously consider the negative impact that would entail

 

[Azih]

Prosecutor, eh? Seems more like feigning outrage to avoid paying back the $3 million they stole, but whatever works for you.

It's really up in the air at the moment. It wasn't a judicial or police procedure that found the NDP violated budget rules but a parliamentary board that is stacked with NDP opponents. Now the NDP is taking the case to the courts and I'll accept their judgement when it happens because the budget rules are pretty obtuse.

Either way though, rolling over and accepting the charges (which is for spending funds in the wrong places rather than theft) would allow the Conservatives and Liberals to paint the NDP as equally as corrupt as the other two large parties. A large part of the NDP's appeal is as an agent of change and this certainly would put a damper on that image. By vigorously denying it Mulcair has blunted that attack. It's good leadership.

The NDP has committed to PR electoral reform of the House of Commons, which would allow the PCs to come back as there is no more vote splitting and stable coalitions are required to govern which is also a moderating influence on government. That's way better than Trudeau's waffling on the issue. And it is not a Harper like policy at all.

 

[firehawk12]

It's too bad there aren't really going to be any more Duffy revelations. Then again, it feels like everyone has already forgotten that whole scandal already. Meanwhile all the Conservatives can do is attack, because they know they can't defend.