see, i was thinking about this, too. but, are voters going to hand them a majority if they can't pass legislation, or are they going to turf them? if we end up with an ndp minority, and we need another election because the senate isn't passing anything because he won't appoint senators, i couldn't see this working in his favour - he'll get slammed for obstructing parliament. and, if the reason it won't pass is because he won't appoint senators then he IS obstructing parliament.

rather, i think it is clear that he will actually appoint senators and that we can reduce claims to the contrary to simple demagoguery - which he has been doing quite a bit of in this campaign. this is a policy that is much older than mulcair is. on the one hand, i don't really doubt he'll do something or other on the file, even if he's starkly limited by the reality of it. on the other hand, he's really being a spokesperson for a longstanding party tradition, and what he says about this should really be taken with a grain of salt.

what he's been saying about it is really flatly irrational.

to me, the bigger question is whether the consistent gaffes, weasel words and inconsistencies coming from him are beginning to add up or not. it takes about three minutes of careful thinking to realize that he's not being honest about this.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-senate-problems-1.3220763