On uneven playing fields

Nancy is understandably concerned about different rules applying to the NDP's leadership race in 2012 than the Libs' in 2013. But it's worth pointing out that there are gaps going in both directions: in particular, the Libs will also get the benefit of some amendments in the new campaign financing legislation - notably the ability for donors to contribute up to the individual limit each year, rather than only once in the leadership campaign - that won't be enjoyed by the NDP's contestants. (And all this as Tim Uppal exhorts the NDP to comply voluntarily with the restrictions contained in the new bill without enjoying its benefits.)

Which is to say that the real reason for suspicion isn't so much the effect of the amendment on any one party's race as it is the Cons' choice to apply different rules to their different competitors' leadership contests. And hopefully the NDP and Libs can keep that concern in mind in dealing with the legislation, rather than allowing the Cons to use the bill to encourage fights among the opposition parties.

On dropped priorities

In case there was any doubt that Stephen Harper has officially abandoned any commitment to making the Senate anything other than a patronage factory, his party's spin in the wake of his latest set of appointments should put the matter to rest.

Yes, at least one Con is trying to pretend that some kind of change is still on the table, if only by claiming that his party's past lack of past action should be taken as evidence of good faith in the future:

Tory senators had a majority in the Senate before the election call and made no effort to pass a bill in front of them that set out a process for the election of senators.

Now with a 10-member Senate majority, (Tim) Uppal suggested his government could be trusted to pass its reform bills — one which sets senators' term limits to eight years and another that deals with election of senators — before the end of its mandate in 4 1/2 years.

Uppal would not commit to passing the two Senate reform bills before then, saying it was not at the top of the government's agenda and the Tories' budget and crime bills would come first.

But even Uppal's position is based entirely on the view that doing anything to change the Senate is at most a minor priority which can be delayed indefinitely. (And no, a focus on two bills which the Cons have promised to pass within 100 days doesn't offer the slightest excuse for delaying other legislation for over four years.)

But then, a spokesman from the top makes it absolutely clear that Harper sees constant partisan appointments as the status quo:

Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall said that as long as the legislation wasn't changed, if Manning or any other senator resigned again to run as an MP in a federal election and was defeated again, he might still be re-appointed.

"I can't predict the future. It depends on whether the other Senate bill has been passed. If it hasn't, the law of the land is still the land of the land. And I'm not going to guess what the prime minister would or wouldn't do in that scenario," MacDougall said.

Remember that with majorities in both houses of Parliament, the Cons face exactly zero barriers to changing the legislation surrounding the Senate. Which means that if a bill hasn't passed, it will be the result of the Cons' choice not to bother.

Yet a PMO spokesman is openly musing about continuing to have the option of handing out seats to rejected candidates after the 2015 election. And as long as they're delaying any legislation, they're also showing no shame whatsoever about continuing to dole out seats on a purely partisan basis - cementing an anti-democratic majority to prevent any future government from enacting policies that reflect the will of voters - as 25 current Senators reach their retirement dates in the meantime.

All of which looks to firmly establish that Harper's new plan for the Senate is to use it to further entrench his own power, past promises and democratic principles be damned. Which means that rather than giving him a pass for even a second, anybody who actually believes that its a problem for unelected nonrepresentatives to wield veto power over Canada's government should be starting to work now on ensuring Harper gets removed from office in 2015.