On evidence-free assertions

Bob Runciman is searching for some excuse for using public money for the Cons' political purposes. But before anybody takes his indignation too seriously, let's note that he's using the excuse that "everybody does it" before checking to see whether anybody actually has:

Loveys said this type of partisanship was unheard of before the Harper government came to power.

But Runciman isn't so sure.

He said the government will be checking to see if Liberal senators have done the same in the past.

Now, it's noteworthy enough that it's "the government" - and apparently not Runciman himself - who will take on the task of actually checking whether there's any truth to the theory that the Cons are simply doing what the Libs would have done before. And that should say plenty about who's actually pulling the strings when it comes to the mailout.

But the more remarkable part of the statement is that Runciman apparently has no qualms about using "as far as we know, they could have done it too" - presented without any effort to see whether or not it has any basis in reality - as a catch-all defence which justifies any action which might benefit the Cons. And while the standard of ethics shouldn't come as much surprise, it's surely something we should be looking to change - regardless of where it originates.

Your money. Their junk mail.

I stand corrected: it isn't just Con MPs who have apparently been told to take every possible opportunity to use public money for the party's political gain. Instead, the unelected, unaccountable Senate is also being converted into a Con distribution centre:

Conservative Senators are quietly using taxpayer-funded literature to target opposition ridings with a partisan crime message as the party gears up for the next election, the Toronto Star has learned.

And at least one of the Senators sent the mailers out at the direction of the Conservative Party of Canada’s national campaign office.

That Senator was Bob Runciman (Ontario). It is not clear whether Senator Don Plett (Manitoba), who distributed almost identical material, did so at the behest of the party.
...
By using the Senators to send out this kind of literature, the Conservative Party gets around the prohibition on MPs using tax dollars to send partisan messages to other ridings, which the House of Commons agreed must stop.

Fixed

QMI somewhat misses the point as to the effect of Bob Runciman's appointment to the Senate. So let's fix the lead-in:

Bob Runciman is ready for a break. So he's rather lucky that Stephen Harper has granted him one lasting until 2017 at public expense.

On resistance

Aaron Wherry points out the advice which newly-appointed Con Senator Bob Runciman gave to the party when it faced a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons. But it's worth fleshing out just what Runciman's stance means:

As last week's parliamentary shenanigans unfolded, Runciman got in touch with his Conservative colleagues on Parliament Hill to give them the benefit of his experience.

"I immediately sent my friends at the federal level my encouragement to prorogue the House, because one of the mistakes we made was not resisting," he said.

So what was it that Runciman thought the Ontario Cons should have resisted? Remember that in the 1985 Ontario election, the Libs actually won more of the popular vote than the Cons, and were only four seats behind in their final count. And added to that almost complete parity between the two largest caucuses, the NDP had pledged its support to the Libs based on a written agreement.

At that point, the Cons would have had no excuses based on alleged collaboration with separatists, and no argument that they could claim a larger caucus than the next two largest parties (or even a substantially larger caucus than the proposed government). Instead, the only reason to "resist" would have been based on a belief that a party is fully entitled to cling to power even when it holds neither a popular mandate nor the confidence of the legislature by any reasonable measure.

In effect, then, Runciman seems to recognize that every excuse offered up by the Harper Cons in 2008 was a sham, representing nothing than a means of clinging to power for its own sake. And by rewarding that mindset, with an appointment to the Senate, Harper has effectively signalled his own agreement - while at the same time setting up one source of resistance as he nears a Senate majority which will presumably be ready to throw a tantrum on command.

So Runciman's appointment should offer one more indication that Harper will have to be removed from 24 Sussex Drive kicking and screaming - no matter how clearly he lacks the confidence of the House, or even how soundly he gets defeated in a future election. And those of us looking forward to a less despotic government in Ottawa will need to factor that future resistance into our efforts.

(Edit: fixed wording.)