Thursday, December 14, 2006

First, fix the Commons - Globe editorial

An editorial in the Globe and Mail today calls Harper's bluff on Senate reform - namely, that if he's so concerned about democracy, why is he flouting it in the House?

"It is oddly incongruous for Mr. Harper to position himself as a champion of parliamentary reform when in government he has reverted to the same sort of high-handed tactics that he once condemned Liberal governments for using. For example, rather than permit chairs of standing committees to be freely elected by members, something he advocated while in opposition as essential for 'reining in the powe rof the Prime Minister,' Mr. Harper undermined the reform by choosing his own candidates for the jobs, candidates whom Conservative MPs then dutifully elected.'"

I'm all for democratic reform, myself. But I'd prefer it be done in a way that didn't strike me as extremely disingenuous. I honestly don't think Harper wants democratic reform, but he knows he must appear that he does to the Reform base. He's already appointed an unelected Senator, appointed that Senator to the cabinet (two things he promised he would never do), and has decided that what's good for the goose isn't so good for the gander when it comes to democratic reform in the House, manipulating committees chairs just as blatantly as his predecessors, whom he condemned, let's not forget, for doing exactly what he is doing today.


At 12/14/2006 12:27 p.m., Blogger wilson61 said...

''two things he promised he would never do''

Not true, PMSH said he would PREFER not to do, not never.

There is only one way, at this point in time, to get a Senator into a vacant seat, and that is to appoint him/her.

By appointing him to cabinet, the howls of outrage from the opposition illustrated his point well, don't you think?

At 12/14/2006 12:44 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

FWIW, here's my thought on Senate reform - I, and I am sure most ordinary Canadians, don't know a heck of alot about how the Senate works. I suspect that only diehard political junkies do and the reform party types.

What I do know is this: 1) I don't care right now 2) If I did, I don't want anyone monkeying around with our Senate unless there is a national debate to educate us average people what the Senate is, how it works, is it broken, what are the possibilties for change and why change at all 3)I firmly believe in 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it 4) and most important, I don't care right now.

What I do care about is action, immediate action to move this country forward on climate change and a sustainable economy.

At 12/14/2006 2:03 p.m., Blogger canuckistanian said...

harper is a joke who will go down in history as important as joe clark.

At 12/15/2006 12:45 a.m., Blogger Penny said...

Joe Clark was a good man, and a Progressive Conservative, who made one big mistake - blathering about moving the CDN embassy to Tel Aviv. He was never given a second chance after that.

The big problem we have nowadays is that politics have become so polarized that a person like myself cannot switch her vote to the NewCons if she doesn't like what the Liberals are doing. When the Cons were PCs, I was actually a card carrying member, but with a choice.

But I would rather commit hara kiri than vote Conservative these days. The NDP are just as bad, except Jumping Jack is a buffoon, whereas Evil Steve does at least have a sense of humour.

At 12/16/2006 9:15 p.m., Blogger Clear Grit said...

Wasn't it moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

(Hahah, Jumping Jack.)


Post a Comment

<< Home