Susan Delacourt raises two some points in her blog post this morning, concerning Harper's desire to reform the Senate. The one that sticks out for me is why should Harper be able to appoint a majority in the Senate when he can't get one in the Commons?
Sure it's constitutional, so this is a moral argument. Given that Harper wants to reform the Senate it is worth pushing that any reform should make sure that the PM, especially one presiding over a minority parliament, should have far less power over the Senate.
An interrogation of "It doesn’t have to be true. It just has to be plausible..." —Tom Flanagan, former Harper adviser.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It Doesn’t Have to Be False. It Just Has to Seem to Prove Something that Isn't So.
Is Canada printing proportionately more money than anyone else in the G7? So, a few days ago, Build Canada produced this chart (below), a...
-
Is merely having a hyperlink to material deemed libelous enough to be found guilty of disseminating libel? The Supreme Court of Canada will ...
-
Don't take the bribe! Jack is making conciliatory noises towards Harper. Harper averted a summer election by placating Ignatieff wit...
-
Well, libel is the subject today, it seems. Go read Dr. Dawg for some real life insight into how the libel defense of Fair Comment works. P...
No comments:
Post a Comment