Election 2015

[Kirkhill]

A rotten borough was a parliamentary constituencies that had declined in size but still had the right to elect members of the House of Commons. Plympton Earle had been a prosperous market town in the Middle Ages but by the 19th century it had declined to the level of a country village.
Rotten Borough - Spartacus Educational
spartacus-educational.com/PRrotten.htm

Canada seems replete with "rotten boroughs" - especially east of the Rideau Canal and especially in the Senate.

Somebody really ought to do something about that.  Now if only all those inconsequential little boroughs would vote themselves out of existence.

 

[dapaterson]

From those I have spoken to in the media, Mr Duffy's alleged expense account shenanigans came as no surprise.

And again, much of this returns to the judgement of the man who recommended him for appointment to the Senate; a man who ignored advice that Mr Duffy was not a resident of PEI and instead advanced his own interpretation of the rules.  Who did the same with Ms Wallin, ignoring her Toronto residency.  And who attempted to have an individual unqualified due to a lack of membership in the Quebec Bar to the Supreme Court.

While several past PMs have asserted (or attempted to assert) near-presidential powers, the current incumbent seems almost imperial in his reach; "l'etat, c'est Steve".

 

[Kirkhill]

Regardless of "slings and arrows" I will still be voting the Harper ticket because:

I don't find any high degree of competence in Trudeau or his base of support.

While I believe Mulcair to be competent I don't find him particularly principled and his base, while principled (and whose principles are completely at odds with my own) I do not find to be competent.

 

[McG]

Did the PCO conclude Wynne right and Harper wrong on the subject of retirement pensions?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/document-raises-questions-about-harper-retirement-policies-1.3198157

 

[Kirkhill]

List of OECD members  -  How many of them can afford ANY public pensions?  I note that the list includes Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain as well as France (and perhaps one should add the US).

AUSTRALIA
7 June 1971
AUSTRIA
29 September 1961
BELGIUM
13 September 1961
CANADA
10 April 1961
CHILE
7 May 2010
CZECH REPUBLIC
21 December 1995
DENMARK
30 May 1961
ESTONIA
9 December 2010
FINLAND
28 January 1969
FRANCE
7 August 1961
GERMANY
27 September 1961
GREECE
27 September 1961
HUNGARY
7 May 1996
ICELAND
5 June 1961
IRELAND
17 August 1961
ISRAEL
7 September 2010
ITALY
29 March 1962
JAPAN
28 April 1964
KOREA
12 December 1996
LUXEMBOURG
7 December 1961
MEXICO
18 May 1994
NETHERLANDS
13 November 1961
NEW ZEALAND
29 May 1973
NORWAY
4 July 1961
POLAND
22 November 1996
PORTUGAL
4 August 1961
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
14 December 2000
SLOVENIA
21 July 2010
SPAIN
3 August 1961
SWEDEN
28 September 1961
SWITZERLAND
28 September 1961
TURKEY
2 August 1961
UNITED KINGDOM
2 May 1961
UNITED STATES
12 April 1961

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Important issues like the PM attempting to appoint someone unqualified to the Supreme Court?  Appointing residents of Ontario to the Senate, yet claiming that they were residents of PEI and Saskatchewan?

First - Duffy owned a home in PEI and Wallin owned a home in Saskatchewan.  The Consitution Act 1867 says "shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed."  Common law says that a person can have more than one residence.  Certain statutes define residence for different purposes but they are irrelevant to this purpose.

The Supreme Court decision on Supreme Court eligibility is not all that straight forward.  The Supreme Court was created by the Supreme Court Act and is not mentioned in the Constitution other than in the Constutution Act 1982 which says amendments to "the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada" requires unanimous consent of the provinces.  The composition of the Supreme Court surely means that Quebec has 3 members or more members of the 9.  Does "composition" apply to every other judge"s qualification?  That's the argument.

The general qualification for a any judge read "5. Any person may be appointed a judge who is or has been a judge of a superior court of a province or a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of a province."

The qualification of 3 judges from Quebec read "6. At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province."

Harper amended the Supreme Court Act to essentially make qualifications for all provinces similar as follows "6.1 For greater certainty, for the purpose of section 6, a judge is from among the advocates of the Province of Quebec if, at any time, they were an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of that Province."

I am unsure whether changing the qualifications of Quebec judges to the same as the rest of Canada changes the "composition" of the Supreme Court.  Harper had lots of good legal advice that said it did not.  If Nadon had been a fourth judge appointed from Quebec, it appears he would have qualified under the general rules.

 

[McG]

This is not good news for the PM: The majority of Canadians do not believe Stephen Harper is telling the truth about the Mike Duffy Senate expenses scandal, a new poll has found.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/22/poll-most-canadians-dont-believe-harper-on-duffy-scandal.html

 

[a_majoor]

Frankly, I don't give a toss about the Duffy trial anymore. If anything was going to leap out at us, it would have a long time ago. The fact that multiple other senators are being investigated or one (Marc Harb) is charged with $230,000 of fraudulent expenses but this is somehow considered "not" newsworthy points more to a problem in the media in terms of bias and "narrative" than anything else (breathlessly mentioning that Liberal senators are also under investigation but not naming any at the very end of a CBC news piece pretty much sets the stage, and of course how much of these other investigations have been reported anywhere, much less with the breathless intensity of the Duffy trial or its lead up?)

As a citizen, father and service member, I am much more concerned with what the various parties are promising/offering. What promises will help me and my family? Which promises will help my daughter, who will be entering the workplace soon, or my son when he is ready to graduate high school four years hence?

What are the various parities doing to secure Canada's "National Interest" in open markets and free(er) trade to preserve our wealth and standards of living? How do they intend to enforce a peaceful commercial environment? What tools do we have or will we be getting to do so?

The parties which have the answers which seem reasonable, practical and executable are certainly the ones which will get my detailed attention (and of course the ones which also are closest to my own philosophical principles and values will also be more deserving of my support).

 

[Kirkhill]

This is not good news for the PM: The majority of Canadians do not believe Stephen Harper is telling the truth about the Mike Duffy Senate expenses scandal, a new poll has found.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/22/poll-most-canadians-dont-believe-harper-on-duffy-scandal.html

56% equals ERC's core Liberals + core NDP that have always believed Harper eats kittens
22% equals ERC's core Tories that will never believe that Harper expels noxious odours
22% equals the battle ground.

All Harper needs is 35 to 40%.

With the NDP holding Quebec and Vancouver (and maybe Trawna), and Harper holding the Prairies Trudeau and keep the Maritimes.

Will 905 vote Harper, Trudeau or Mulcair?  I'd bet that Harper can pick up the 13 to 17% that he needs there before Trudeau or Mulcair actually gain enough support to convert votes into ridings.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The numbers are fun, the strategies and tactics are fascinating, but: there is some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that we have a pretty robust, open, generally fair democracy. We all, well most of who are qualified, get to vote ... if we choose. And the party that the greatest number of us select is very likely to form a government. It is very likely that 60%+ of us are going to wish, on 20 Oct 15, that someone else was forming the government, but c'est la vie, as they say. There's more good news: none of Prime Minister Harper, Opposition Leader Mulcair or M Trudeau are bad men; none are going to turn into a right wing despot or a left wing nut. Most of the couple of thousand Canadians who will stand for office are similar to the leaders, not bad, not really good, perhaps, but, by and large, acceptable.

Now the bad news: none of Prime Minister Harper, Opposition Leader Mulcair or M Trudeau are particularly good leaders for a country that must tack its way into strong strategic (international), domestic/social and economic headwinds. It's not going to be smooth sailing and I doubt that any of the three current party leaders is really who any of us wants.

I will not welcome an NDP government, if that's who we all choose. But I doubt it will do real, serious, long term harm to our country, despite my mistrust of the economic and fiscal motivations of M Mulcair's back-bench and base.

I am not really afraid of a government led by M Trudeau, if that's the party we select. Despite my reservations about his 'bottom', he can put together a pretty solid front bench. I doubt his government will do much real damage either.

I rather hope Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives are re-elected, despite my real, serious reservations about Prime Minister Harper as a leader. I believe the CPC has a good team and I hope that Prime Minister Harper, who I believe has been tarnished, perhaps irreparably damaged by his own words and deeds, will resign and make way for a new, better leader. But the CPC may have run  its course, for now; it may need a rest on the opposition benches benches while it reconsiders its aims and objectives for Canada. That is the normal and natural fate of all political parties. It is why our ramshackle, messy democracy is, always, better than even the best managed one-party state.

My  :2c:  because I think too many of us take all this too seriously ... Remember what Gloria Gaynor said: those political buggers will be back and we will survive, no matter which of 'em leads our country.

 

[Acorn]

>And if there was nothing wrong with a Chief of Staff giving/loaning $ to a Senator to pay back problematic claims, why all the effort to keep it 1)  from the public, and 2)  from the PM's ears?

>For those who claim that this is a non-scandal about something that was in the public's best interest, then is it not a fair question to ask why the PMO was so determined to cover it up and mislead the public?

Because they knew "[n]othing that can be used to stir up sh!t for Harper ever has or will have any prospect of being a minor issue."  And they were right: here we are, more than two years later, with people still hoping to make Watergate out of it - basically, hoping for a finding of "bribery" related to 3 of the charges, because most of the charges (28) against Duffy are purely about his personal interpretation of expenses.

Harper could have been up front about it and said "we're not impressed by this, but Duffy was my appointment so we are paying back his expenses and ejecting him from caucus" (and ragged Trudeau that Harb was merely ejected from caucus, but the Libs won't pay back the mistake). And if he really didn't know what his people were doing, that goes further to his judgement about who he appoints and how he leads.

Maybe I'm just angry because after so many years of Cretien I actually hoped Harper would be different. I suppose he is, but not the way I expected.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Harper is different.  Basically one complaint against him boils down to his poor judgement selecting senators.  What was known at the time the decision was made?

Another complaint boils down to his willingness to take issues before courts.  People who only see the issue the other way before it is decided hate him because there is a risk the decision might go his way.  Others join the bandwagon after the decision is rendered - the omniscient SOB should have known better.

More complaints - virtually all of the personality-related ones - are basically prejudice against introverted people, which is almost the last prejudice that can still be openly voiced.  One day, hopefully not too far in the future, it will be as unacceptable to call an introverted person a "cold fish" as it is to call a gay person a "fag".  Extroverts, and even mild introverts, will realize that it is as unfair to expect a deeply introverted person to conform to their social expectations as it is to expect a legless man to get out of his chair and walk.

He hasn't been accused of taking money.  He hasn't been accused of meddling in real estate deals in which he holds an interest.  His COS hasn't been accused of altering documents, and certainly hasn't been promoted to a party leadership position and offered up to voters.  Undoubtedly, nowhere in Canada has a CoS of any political or non-political organization ever kept his boss removed from a problematical situation.  For this despicable innovation we should all be sanctimoniously outraged.

 

[Jed]

Harper is different.  Basically one complaint against him boils down to his poor judgement selecting senators.  What was known at the time the decision was made?

Another complaint boils down to his willingness to take issues before courts.  People who only see the issue the other way before it is decided hate him because there is a risk the decision might go his way.  Others join the bandwagon after the decision is rendered - the omniscient SOB should have known better.

More complaints - virtually all of the personality-related ones - are basically prejudice against introverted people, which is almost the last prejudice that can still be openly voiced.  One day, hopefully not too far in the future, it will be as unacceptable to call an introverted person a "cold fish" as it is to call a gay person a "fag".  Extroverts, and even mild introverts, will realize that it is as unfair to expect a deeply introverted person to conform to their social expectations as it is to expect a legless man to get out of his chair and walk.

He hasn't been accused of taking money.  He hasn't been accused of meddling in real estate deals in which he holds an interest.  His COS hasn't been accused of altering documents, and certainly hasn't been promoted to a party leadership position and offered up to voters.  Undoubtedly, nowhere in Canada has a CoS of any political or non-political organization ever kept his boss removed from a problematical situation.  For this despicable innovation we should all be sanctimoniously outraged.

Ala Casablanca, " Frankly Rick, I am shocked, shocked I tell you , that you allow gambling in this establishment." As the Commandant picks up his winnings at the door. (a little paraphrasing here)

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I still don't understand how paying back Duffy's questionable expenses is in any way undesirable from any point of view.  The NDP haven't paid back the expense money they stole to pay NDP staffers and are totally unapologetic.    Have the Liberal Sponsorship scandal amounts been repaid?  I don't think so.  Making sure Duffy's expenses were repaid is a sign of responsibility and could only be a scandal in the eyes of the Canadian media.

 

[McG]

The question is not wether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.

 

[Jed]

The question is not whether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.

Do you really believe that?  Take a look to the south and see how the sheeple and the Mainstream Media have been willfully blind to Hilary's shenanigans for a loooong time.  Are we Canadians that much better of a people than the USA? I hardly think so.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Do you really believe that?  Take a look to the south and see how the sheeple and the Mainstream Media have been willfully blind to Hilary's shenanigans for a loooong time.  Are we Canadians that much better of a people than the USA? I hardly think so.

Brian Gable, the editorial cartoonist in the Globe and Mail, thinks it's most likely a matter of perspective:

Source: the Globe and Mail

 

[The Bread Guy]

I still don't understand how paying back Duffy's questionable expenses is in any way undesirable from any point of view .... Making sure Duffy's expenses were repaid is a sign of responsibility and could only be a scandal in the eyes of the Canadian media.

Interesting take, but again, if PMO folks tried to downplay the connection, and keep "the boss" in a plausibly deniable position, at the very least it looks out of place.  I'm prepared to let the courts settle it, but optics is never zero, especially during elections.

The question is not wether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.

That.  Right.  There.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The question is not wether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.

I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the PM engaged in wanton subterfuge to lie to the public. Notwithstanding what Mulcair, Trudeau and the MSM say.

 

[Harrigan]

The question is not wether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.

Exactly.