[...]
Except for Alberta, a majority of respondents in all provinces say Prime Minister Harper is being hypocritical for appointing new senators.
Vision Critical is connected with Angus Reid, so I would assume the methodology is decent enough.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Harper And The Senate: The People Have Spoken
Last month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed five people to the Senate. Two thirds of Canadians (65%) think Harper is being hypocritical by appointing new senators while at the same time calling for Senate reform. A third of respondents (35%) disagree.
[...]
Except for Alberta, a majority of respondents in all provinces say Prime Minister Harper is being hypocritical for appointing new senators.
Vision Critical is connected with Angus Reid, so I would assume the methodology is decent enough.
[...]
Except for Alberta, a majority of respondents in all provinces say Prime Minister Harper is being hypocritical for appointing new senators.
Vision Critical is connected with Angus Reid, so I would assume the methodology is decent enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I prefer the Senate be filled the old fashioned way: Prime Ministerial prerogative. You want people sympathetic to your cause sitting in the Senate? Then win a federal election. Harper and his appointments don't rankle me at all other than the fact he said he'd never do it. Canadians supposedly want to be able to vote for Senators, but I don't buy it. Almost half of us can't be bothered to vote for Parliament representation so what sort of electoral response would Senate elections garner? Little to none, I'd bet.
Except for Alberta, a majority of respondents in all provinces say Prime Minister Harper is being hypocritical for appointing new senators.
Oh Oilberta!!! So when it's your guys in power, then it is OK to stack the senate with assorted hacks and bagmen? This proves the old Reform party was all just bullshit.
Interesting:
"Out of several proposals that have been tabled regarding Senate reform, most Canadians endorse allowing citizens to choose senators in direct elections (67%), and limiting the terms of appointed senators to eight years (65%).
Only a third of respondents (34%) would agree with the creation of a panel of distinguished Canadians that would appoint senators instead of the prime minister. Three-in-ten Canadians (29%) would abolish the upper house of Parliament altogether."
That part should begin "Out of several proposals that we, the pollsters, believe are the only options Canadians should consider because we arrogate to ourselves the right to determine the limits of this debate, most Canadians endorse..."
Like I've said before, the last thing Canadians need is another chamber filled with career politicians.
(Original post implied "BCL" was a Conservative Albertan..)
As a Conservative.
As an Albertan.
I have posted several blogs on my site making it very clear that we, as Conservatives, can't suck and blow on the issue of stacking the Senate.
As someone once said, to paraphrase, "We have a choice, sir."
If you have Senator in there for 8 years.then some PM will have to appoint the whole lot, all over again...electing Senators...that is too American, and no sober second thought.
"Oh Oilberta!!! So when it's your guys in power, then it is OK to stack the senate with assorted hacks and bagmen?"
To be fair, I am not sure most people see it as being hypocritical (though it is).
Most people here truly believe Harper is going to bring in the Triple E Senate, despite the fact he has yet to say that is his goal. They believe he needs to appoint senators to reach that goal.
I think if most Albertans understood how royally screwed we would be with this so-called "incremental" method of reforming the senate, they would think twice.
I think it is because they have demanded senate reform for so many years and Harper is the only one who seems to be listening. Of course, his proposals are stupid and ill thought out, but I do not think Albertans are the only people in this country who are happy to glom on to simple "solutions" for complex problems.
Why the hell would anyone want to be doling out pensions every 8 years? Id prefer to keep them longer and keep the turnover rate low to save cash. Is Harpers plan just to create a place for cronies to get a fat pension just after 8 years of barely working? How fiscally conservative is that?
It also burns me that that shitbag Pierre got a pension for lying and yelling for 5 years.
It also burns me that that shitbag Pierre got a pension for lying and yelling for 5 years.
Not only that, as Rick Mercer figured out a couple of weeks ago - seems Pee Pee Poilievre has never held anything one would consider a real job either. Now at 31 he has a gold-plated pension. Makes one wish to bitch-slap the entire riding of Nepean-Carleton, does it not?
Post a Comment