Patronage Hypocrites

OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper was labelled Canada's political "patronage king" and a "hypocrite" yesterday after tossing aside for the second time his promise not to name unelected Canadians to the Senate.(link)

I think I would be more apt to take the opposition more seriously except for the fact that most of them are responsible for stalling and halting most of Harper's attempts at reforming the senate over the last few years. Couple this with the back history that the Liberal Party has had with patronage appointments and I think the opposition's calls of "hypocrite" will come flying back into their lying faces.

7 comments:

  1. So as long as the Liberals did it, it's okay?

    Way to stand up for your principles.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "So as long as the Liberals did it, it's okay?"

    Sorry I'm not following your logic. I was not saying that when the Liberals did it, it was ok. I was arguing that since the Liberals have done it in the past, flaunted that they've done it, then stalled any attempts to reform the system, that really they are the hypocrites.

    You can't spank Harper for trying over and over, and eventually giving up and trying a different strategy.

    It's become clear that you and the rest of your buddies in Ottawa love an Unelected Undemocratic Senate so very much you're willing to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening.

    How can you blame someone who believes in an elected senate from going down the last road you've left open to him?

    ReplyDelete
  3. No matter what side you're on in this argument, you have to admit that Stephen Harper did get the issue back on the table - at least in the media!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the more important question here is what strategy can believers in Senate reform do to further the efforts at reform given that what we tried quite frankly didn't work.

    The strategic positioning of the Liberals and the NDP in the last election of insisting that before the senate could be reformed it needed to be done through a consitutional change and have proportional representation was highly successful in scuttling the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do think it was decided that term limits could be accomplished without opening the constitution. It is within the purview of the federal government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So as long as the Liberals did it, it's okay?

    Well M.L. it seems that whenever SH TRIES to stand up for his principles - the left opposition stall, block, or outright defeat his "principles".

    I would say he is standing up for his principles by getting people into the senate who will follow through.

    After all there is more than one way to skin a cat - so to speak.

    You are just angry that he is slowly paring away at the liberal majority in the senate.

    Soon he will have all the opposition screaming for 'elected senate'

    I take it you are now on side?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I do think it was decided that term limits could be accomplished without opening the constitution. It is within the purview of the federal government."

    And appointing people that just happen to be elected to the Senate isn't prohibited in the Constitution either.

    The Opposition argument was bogus to suggest that a Constitutional change was required. I just think it was effective - unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete