|
|
Post by cigarviper on Dec 3, 2008 17:47:56 GMT -5
I think it's a stretch to believe that Harper had some maniacal hand in the coalition coming to fruition through any of his actions and decisions. Hugh Segal though, is one crafty SOB. A Dick Cheney "light" so to speak. He is certainly capable of such a cunning stunt.  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 3, 2008 18:41:10 GMT -5
I think it's a stretch to believe that Harper had some maniacal hand in the coalition coming to fruition through any of his actions and decisions. Hugh Segal though, is one crafty SOB. A Dick Cheney "light" so to speak. He is certainly capable of such a cunning stunt. However, if he comes through this unscathed, some pro-Tory historian will no doubt site this as a brilliant strategy. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 21:38:50 GMT -5
My wife told me she heard a report on CTV this afternoon that PCs were calling certain Liberals as early as last weekend and offering cabinet positions if they'd walk across the floor. Still trying to find it on the web. Could just be more spin. What a circus. The same thing was said tonight by Martha Hall Finley ... is that her name? (I didnt catch it ... one of the Liberal critics anyway). She said it was under Canadian Law a criminal offense to offer compensation (cabinet positions) for a vote in the Commons (you hear that Belinda!!!). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 21:41:47 GMT -5
Which is why he should be ousted .... for willfully creating a " {expletive deleted}-storm in the face of a potential national crisis. It shows that the national crisis is not at the fore-front of his agenda, when it clearly should be. This situation cries out for a PM who is going to promote stability and co-operation, not play games that can and will effect the markets more .... Sure. I have no problems with removing Harper from power. If you think him playing a political game of chicken with his adversaries is a crime worthy of removing him from power, then by all means, remove him. But put the choice in the hands of Canadians, not politicians. If Dion was saying "our coalition will form, pass a budget and an economic stimulus package and then dissolve Parliament" I could handle it. I might even endorse it (for what my endorsement is worth). But they're not. They're saying we intend to continue governing beyond the immediate crisis which we feel Harper has caused without consulting with the people of Canada if they wish us to. That's arrogant, and offensive. Dion knows he won't win at the polls. Layton knows he won't win at the polls. And so they will endeavor to keep the power out of the hands of the people for as long as possible. That is wrong. Damn wrong. Actually it isnt wrong ... it is called politics and parliamentary procedure. You may find it ethically wrong. But in reality what Dion and Layton are proposing is to keep the choice of Canadians (the current parliament), and restructure it to work. (which is the perogative of Parliament - it can be re-structured at any time. Floor crossings is an example, cabinet shuffles another less pertinent one, and yes even coalitions) Technically, everytime someone gets booted out of caucus (ala Bill Casey) we should have an election if you deem re-structuring to be wrong ... it wasn't the voice of the people. They wanted a Conservative in the government, not an independent who can't even question the government .... (this time around they chose that, but not last time) .... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 22:47:52 GMT -5
Actually it isnt wrong ... it is called politics and parliamentary procedure. You may find it ethically wrong. But in reality what Dion and Layton are proposing is to keep the choice of Canadians (the current parliament), and restructure it to work. (which is the perogative of Parliament - it can be re-structured at any time. Floor crossings is an example, cabinet shuffles another less pertinent one, and yes even coalitions) Technically, everytime someone gets booted out of caucus (ala Bill Casey) we should have an election if you deem re-structuring to be wrong ... it wasn't the voice of the people. They wanted a Conservative in the government, not an independent who can't even question the government .... (this time around they chose that, but not last time) .... Comparing the ousting of a single member from caucus or a single member crossing the table to this is hardly an apt comparison Skilly. This is a wholesale reorganization of the government, not an individual member changing sides. This is new and completely different and trying to compare it to an pre-existing situation simply is not doable. You and I also disagree on what the will of Canadians is. I've said it several times - the Liberal and NDP voters did not vote to have the other party in power, and they did not vote to put the BQ in power (I know, I know - the Bloc will not be an official member of the coalition, but you must know their support comes with a price tag). Some may be happy, I'm sure. But not all. And Dion and Layton both know it, which is why it won't go to an election. Bottom line - if you can't win an election, you don't belong in power. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 4, 2008 7:08:53 GMT -5
Actually it isnt wrong ... it is called politics and parliamentary procedure. You may find it ethically wrong. But in reality what Dion and Layton are proposing is to keep the choice of Canadians (the current parliament), and restructure it to work. (which is the perogative of Parliament - it can be re-structured at any time. Floor crossings is an example, cabinet shuffles another less pertinent one, and yes even coalitions) Technically, everytime someone gets booted out of caucus (ala Bill Casey) we should have an election if you deem re-structuring to be wrong ... it wasn't the voice of the people. They wanted a Conservative in the government, not an independent who can't even question the government .... (this time around they chose that, but not last time) .... Comparing the ousting of a single member from caucus or a single member crossing the table to this is hardly an apt comparison Skilly. This is a wholesale reorganization of the government, not an individual member changing sides. This is new and completely different and trying to compare it to an pre-existing situation simply is not doable. You and I also disagree on what the will of Canadians is. I've said it several times - the Liberal and NDP voters did not vote to have the other party in power, and they did not vote to put the BQ in power (I know, I know - the Bloc will not be an official member of the coalition, but you must know their support comes with a price tag). Some may be happy, I'm sure. But not all. And Dion and Layton both know it, which is why it won't go to an election. Bottom line - if you can't win an election, you don't belong in power. What you and I disagree on, is what a vote stands for (as far as I can see). Has your MP every voted in the Commons in a way you disagreed with? Most have ... as an example, I didn't vote for Loyola Hearn to stand up in Parliament and vote against the Atlantic Accord and put a spin on it. No one in NL did .... BUT they did vote for Loyola Hearn to vote and use discretion in in the House. Your vote entitles MPs to vote in the House. And that includes votes of confidence and re-structuring of Parliament .... whether you agree with it or not. Thats what a vote does. In fact, most (ok, I have no proof using a word like most .... but I'd still say it is most)people who voted NDP or Liberal last election, had anti-Harper intentions anyway. Staunch Liberals and NDP (those who support any platform or policy) are anti-conservative at heart ..... I don't consider this outcome a disenfranchisement of my vote (if I could have voted). And yes, I do feel that a floor crossing is comparable .... Belinda's floor crossing allowed Harper to pass a piece of legislation (it was that close). In minority government's, each vote in the Commons means alot, because of the possible trickle effect of more following suit .... right now, if 11 MPs decided to cross the floor (which is what Harper tried by reaching across the floor as he says) would that be the will of the people? Would Harper call an election? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 4, 2008 9:29:12 GMT -5
Belinda's floor crossing allowed Harper to pass a piece of legislation (it was that close). Actually [we may as well have facts straight] Belinda crossed the floor to the Liberal side, was given a cabinet post, and allowed the Liberals to continue pass a confidence vote and remain in power. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 4, 2008 9:39:44 GMT -5
What you and I disagree on, is what a vote stands for (as far as I can see). Has your MP every voted in the Commons in a way you disagreed with? Most have ... as an example, I didn't vote for Loyola Hearn to stand up in Parliament and vote against the Atlantic Accord and put a spin on it. No one in NL did .... BUT they did vote for Loyola Hearn to vote and use discretion in in the House. Your vote entitles MPs to vote in the House. And that includes votes of confidence and re-structuring of Parliament .... whether you agree with it or not. Thats what a vote does. And that's the difference between theory and reality. In theory Loyola was supposed to get up and do what was right for his riding - he was supposed to represent your interests (hence the term 'representative democracy'). But instead he represents his party's interests (he does have the option of voting against his party, which means he will shortly thereafter no longer be in the party - I believe there was a Nova Scotian MP who did this, but Loyola has been in politics too long not to tow the party line). I could go on and on about Parliamentary reforms and why they're needed, but that's neither the topic here, nor is it really relevant. While in theory you voted for a person to represent you in Parliament, in reality you voted for a party and a party's platform. It is simply the way the Government of Canada works - for better or for worse. And that is not only the practical reality of the matter, but it is also the way the populace perceives reality. Case in point - and I'm sorry I don't have any names, but I'm going back to my Grade 10 or 11 democracy class - there was a Liberal MP in a Toronto riding who had enjoyed a great deal of popularity over the years. Other than his first election, none of the races for his riding had even been close. But there was a difference of opinion about some issue or another, and he voted against the government and was consequently kicked out of a caucus. He sat as an independent and, during the next election, ran as an independent Liberal. The candidate the Liberals set up in the riding won the election by more than 15% (I believe - might have been 10%). The point? The people vote with the party, no matter what they're supposed to vote for in theory. In fact, most (ok, I have no proof using a word like most .... but I'd still say it is most)people who voted NDP or Liberal last election, had anti-Harper intentions anyway. Staunch Liberals and NDP (those who support any platform or policy) are anti-conservative at heart ..... I don't consider this outcome a disenfranchisement of my vote (if I could have voted). There is like as not to be some overlap between the Liberals and the NDP - I admit that lefty Liberals and righty NDP are quite happy with the marriage. And in some areas of the country it was certainly an "anybody but the conservatives" kind of campaign. But how many Liberal/NDP voters are going to be happy with the Bloc's involvement (and what the price of the Bloc's support will be)? You've said it yourself - this is a great way for Harper to get a majority. That should tell you that a lot of people who voted Liberal/NDP/Green last time will be voting Conservative this time. And yes, I do feel that a floor crossing is comparable .... Belinda's floor crossing allowed Harper to pass a piece of legislation (it was that close). In minority government's, each vote in the Commons means alot, because of the possible trickle effect of more following suit .... right now, if 11 MPs decided to cross the floor (which is what Harper tried by reaching across the floor as he says) would that be the will of the people? Would Harper call an election? Actually, Belinda crossed to help Martin, not Harper. She pretty well stabbed Steven in the back (to say nothing of MacKay). And frankly I thought that Belinda should have ran in a by-election following her betrayal, as did many in her riding. However she went back afterwards and ran and won, and so I was more or less mollified. But a defection of MP's, even 11 MP's, is nothing to the defection of an entire party (or, in this case, two entire parties). Like I said (either in this thread or the other one) I would survive, grudgingly, if they took power, passed emergency economic measures, and then returned to receive a mandate from the people. That's all I ask really. But you, I and they know Harper is now poised to slaughter the coalition, which could at the end of all this wind up holding only a few seats in Ontario, large parts of Quebec and all of Newfoundland (because are repulsive as the BQ is to many outside of Quebec, Danny will find some way to crucify Harper). Listen to your own words. You (and others) say if an election is called that Harper will take the majority. That should tell you that the government does not have the support of the people. And without the support of the people the government has no right to rule. Nor should it ever. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 4, 2008 10:18:12 GMT -5
I just watched both addresses, and since I wasn't around for the hubbub last night about the Liberal one being late, I didn't think either was that bad (or good for that matter).
Harper loves the word separatist, and is attacking the coalition based on the lack of historical precedent. Dion was defending the constitutional validity of the coalition. Nothing new.
So as one fairly informed party on this political issue, I say "meh." Neither persuaded me that either was in the right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 4, 2008 10:24:12 GMT -5
Belinda's floor crossing allowed Harper to pass a piece of legislation (it was that close). Actually [we may as well have facts straight] Belinda crossed the floor to the Liberal side, was given a cabinet post, and allowed the Liberals to continue pass a confidence vote and remain in power. Oops .. thats right ... the point is still there. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 4, 2008 10:34:23 GMT -5
But a defection of MP's, even 11 MP's, is nothing to the defection of an entire party (or, in this case, two entire parties). Like I said (either in this thread or the other one) I would survive, grudgingly, if they took power, passed emergency economic measures, and then returned to receive a mandate from the people. That's all I ask really. But you, I and they know Harper is now poised to slaughter the coalition, which could at the end of all this wind up holding only a few seats in Ontario, large parts of Quebec and all of Newfoundland (because are repulsive as the BQ is to many outside of Quebec, Danny will find some way to crucify Harper). Listen to your own words. You (and others) say if an election is called that Harper will take the majority. That should tell you that the government does not have the support of the people. And without the support of the people the government has no right to rule. Nor should it ever. Explain to me exactly how two entire parties are defecting ... they aren't. They are uniting, because they feel it is for the good of the country, the exact reason people vote for their platforms .... because they think that party and their platform is better for the country (well at least that the theory as you say). Parliament gets voted in four 4 years, not Steven Harper, not the Conservatives ... parliament. All sitting MPs currently have the right, the duty, to make parliament work for 4 years .... all options must be extinguished before an election is called, which is why the GG has the authority to NOT allow a government to drop the writ at will. My words, if they came out correctly, were that AFTER last night's idiocy that Harper is closer to his majority .... if Dion, after hearing Harper say basically nothing, did the wise thing and said to the people "there is nothing to comment on, the PM said nothing new, further proving our point he is not ready for these tough economic ties ... an economist can't handle the economy issues" .... just say it live, no tape, short and sweet and walk away .. then Dion would have gained huge support. But "l'affaire tape" was asinine. Dion steps down now, does it for the good of the country .... I believe the coalition thrives. Another thing I haven't heard on here yet, and I hope I heard it correctly last night ... one high ranking conservative strategist said that Harper has agreed that if M.Jean does not prorogue parliament he will resign and let another conservative lead the party. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 4, 2008 10:38:11 GMT -5
What I find rather ironic in all this is that Harper is requesting from Michaelle Jean (a soverignist sympathizer and an immigrant) that parliament be prorogued (or an election called) to avoid a coalition (which happens all over the world and most immigrants in this country probably think we are foolish for reacting like this to a coalition) that will have the support of sovereignists in three votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 4, 2008 11:00:18 GMT -5
If I had to make a decision as the GG, I'd suspend parliament. No doubt in my mind ... THEN ... I'd call all four leaders (pfft! leaders  ) of the major parties to Rideau Hall and collectively rip them a new arse. She's got a tough decision ahead of her. I'd like to see her make a tough decision. Gosh knows we need that now more than ever. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 4, 2008 11:44:16 GMT -5
Maybe there is another option ... I didnt have time to read all this ... but this stood out to me ... remember Martin ignored many votes of confidence saying they were procedural issues. Furthermore, it is important to remember that parliamentary votes of non-confidence fall
under a peculiar category of legislative business. Despite their reputation as constitutional
conventions capable of toppling governments and forcing the dissolution of Parliament, within the context of House procedure they are nevertheless non-binding motions. The Speaker will rule whether a motion calling on the government to resign is in order, and whether the vote has passed or not. The Speaker will not and cannot rule on whether the government has in fact lost the confidence of the House, regardless of the character, explicitness or circumstances of the vote. As Beauchesne explains: ‘the determination of the issue of confidence in the government is not a question of procedure or order, and does not involve the interpretive responsibilities of the Speaker . . . matters of confidence should at all times be clearly subject to political determination’ (Beauchesne 1989, 168(6)).37 The House of Commons, then, is not the final arbiter in deciding when a government has lost the confidence of the House, nor can the House force its own dissolution (Blackburn 1990, 43 ff). So the House can pass all the votes of nonconfidence
it wants, and opposition MPs can claim, as did BQ leader Gilles Duceppe, that their
motion was: ‘... clearly a non-confidence motion, and [that] the three opposition parties
recognize it as such.’ In the end, and despite Bagehot’s apparent confidence to the contrary (House of Commons Debates, 10 May 2005), the House still lacks the constitutional authority to legally force dissolution or resignation. Just as the opposition can persuade, but not force, a minister to respond to opposition questions during Question Period,38 the House does indeed possess considerable political power by which it can persuade the government to act in certain ways, and eventually frustrate a ministry’s ambition to govern. Yet this power is entirelypolitical,39 and not enforceable by any legal means.
www.etudeparlementaire.ca/English/pdf/ongoing/Parliamentary_Perspectives_7_2006_Eng.pdfCan Harper just ignore the confidence vote? This is talking about non-confidence vote by the opposition I am assuming ... but can Harper "take away" the confidence motion attached to this? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 4, 2008 11:53:20 GMT -5
Explain to me exactly how two entire parties are defecting ... they aren't. They are uniting, because they feel it is for the good of the country, the exact reason people vote for their platforms .... because they think that party and their platform is better for the country (well at least that the theory as you say). You mean aside from the whole "alliance with the Bloc" thing right? Because I figure that much would be self-evident, even if you you are a mild fan of the Bloc. Other than that - two parties, two often contradictory platforms, to campaigns not three months ago that were highly critical of one another. And now they're hopping into bed with one another without even attempting to make the government work (you know, the whole thing about not listening to the changes Harper has offered to make). Yeah, I'm not sure who's crossing the floor to get into bed with whom (that'll come to light when we see exactly what the details of the accord between the three parties are) but there's lots of bed hopping to say the least. Parliament gets voted in four 4 years, not Steven Harper, not the Conservatives ... parliament. All sitting MPs currently have the right, the duty, to make parliament work for 4 years .... all options must be extinguished before an election is called, which is why the GG has the authority to NOT allow a government to drop the writ at will. Wrong again Skilly. It amazes me the number of factual errors you've made during this whole debate - usually I'd give your words a pass just on the basis of your reputation around here. First off, irregardless of whatever law may have been passed, Parliament governs at the leisure of the GG. No more, no less. By tradition the GG remains uninvolved unless there is a crisis in the House, but make no mistake - this is enshrined in the constitution and no simple law can nullify it. Secondly - the law you are quoting applies only to majority governments. While it may have been unethical for Harper to call an election when he did, but it was well and truly legal, as would another election at this juncture. Finally - all options appear to have been extinguished. The opposition refuses to engage the government in any kind of meaningful debate at this time. If the opposition were more interested in good governance than their own political aspirations, perhaps some headway could be made and this crisis could be averted. Sadly, the blow-hards on the hill are not know for their ability to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their country. My words, if they came out correctly, were that AFTER last night's idiocy that Harper is closer to his majority .... if Dion, after hearing Harper say basically nothing, did the wise thing and said to the people "there is nothing to comment on, the PM said nothing new, further proving our point he is not ready for these tough economic ties ... an economist can't handle the economy issues" .... just say it live, no tape, short and sweet and walk away .. then Dion would have gained huge support. But "l'affaire tape" was asinine. Fine - you don't believe (I don't care to go back and sift through the thread looking for the exact line, if it even exists). Others do. Others are even saying this is some master stroke propagated by Harper to secure his majority. Another thing I haven't heard on here yet, and I hope I heard it correctly last night ... one high ranking conservative strategist said that Harper has agreed that if M.Jean does not prorogue parliament he will resign and let another conservative lead the party. Didn't hear that, though it's really a moot point right now. As I wrote this I got an e-mail telling me Parliament had been prorogued. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 4, 2008 12:11:39 GMT -5
Didn't hear that, though it's really a moot point right now. As I wrote this I got an e-mail telling me Parliament had been prorogued. Confirmed. What a situation! The whole scenario is pathetic! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 4, 2008 12:26:36 GMT -5
Didn't hear that, though it's really a moot point right now. As I wrote this I got an e-mail telling me Parliament had been prorogued. Confirmed. What a situation! The whole scenario is pathetic! It's not what I wanted - it was running a close second with "allow the coalition to govern" in my least favorite ideas. It handcuffs the government for the time being, and means that we can not respond to the economic crisis for nearly two months. That said, someone else mentioned sitting the four leaders down and having Mme. Jean beat some sense into the lot of them. I don't see it happening, but in the end it might get me what I want - the government that I elected to behave as a government. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 4, 2008 12:35:05 GMT -5
It handcuffs the government for the time being, and means that we can not respond to the economic crisis for nearly two months. Actually, I think it does the opposite -- it means that something can be done. Caucuses can still meet, economists can give guidance, a proper budget can be put together, and we don't rush into throwing money somewhere it should not go just to give the illusion that something is being done [which is what the coalition was going to do]; furthermore, there would have been no budget until January at the earliest no matter how leads. Now . . . I understand that there is a hockey game tonight . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 4, 2008 12:45:38 GMT -5
It handcuffs the government for the time being, and means that we can not respond to the economic crisis for nearly two months. This is a very good point, TNG. That was me, mate. I don't expect her to do it either, but it would be warranted. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 4, 2008 12:56:41 GMT -5
Now . . . I understand that there is a hockey game tonight . . . And thank God (or Mme. Jean?) for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 4, 2008 13:03:33 GMT -5
Wrong again Skilly. It amazes me the number of factual errors you've made during this whole debate - usually I'd give your words a pass just on the basis of your reputation around here. First off, irregardless of whatever law may have been passed, Parliament governs at the leisure of the GG. No more, no less. By tradition the GG remains uninvolved unless there is a crisis in the House, but make no mistake - this is enshrined in the constitution and no simple law can nullify it. Actually, parliament governs by leisure of the sovereign, the GG is her vice-regal representative (if we are going to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's".... those who live in glass houses and all) - and yes I know in 1947 the role of the GG was expanded so she didnt have to running back to the Sovereign This is what astounds me ... i don't know your political stripe, but you continually back up Harper with "it may have been unethical but it was legal" rhetoric ... yet you refuse to see the legality and the Constitutional requirements of allowing a sitting Leader fo the Oppostion to run the HOse of Commons when the House has no confidence in the PM. Once again ... if the government would show good governance and not back-pedal after trying to politically destroy the opposition, and stop conducting covert operations , maybe the country would be better run. The definition of "loss of confidence" in layman's terms, could be "refusing to engage the government" ... so if there is a loss of confidence then the opposition performed their parliamentary duties. You can't constantly force every motion in the House for almost 2 years as confidence motions, and expect the opposition to keep confidence in you ... this was of Harper's making. The Opposition may be digging their own graves by forming a coalition - but it is allowed in our democracy - but Harper is responsible. But I am not exactly sure where I was WRONG ..as you claim. A little confused maybe. Governments are voted in four 4 years (unless they lose confidence, and other scenrios, and yes typically this is majorities) ... and all options have been extinguished by the GG? How? ... the leader of the opposition is an option clearly spelled out to in constitutional documents.... that isnt extinguished. It's the same phrase harper used in 2004 "look at all your options" when he had his coalition in the works with the Bloc. Hypocrisy abounds. Lastly, the most undemocratic thing that could have been done here was prorogue parliament ... especially a mere 7 weeks after an election. You were the champion on here of "the voice of the electorate" ... where is that voice now, for 2 months NO ONE's vote counts ... we have no say, no debate ... while it is allowed under Canadian democracy to prorogue parliament (99% of the time at the end of a session), we have just made a dangerous precendent. The first time in Canadian history our parliament was prorogued without fulfilling most of its legislative agenda, heck without fulfilling any of its agenda, without conducting the will of the people ... and what is even more scary is that no one sees this. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 4, 2008 13:15:21 GMT -5
I sincerely hope ... the Liberals get their act together and use this two months to turf Dion and install an interim leader ....
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 4, 2008 14:30:37 GMT -5
Actually, parliament governs by leisure of the sovereign, the GG is her vice-regal representative (if we are going to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's".... those who live in glass houses and all) - and yes I know in 1947 the role of the GG was expanded so she didnt have to running back to the Sovereign In 1947 the laws were changed so that the vice-regal representative exercised the executive powers of his or her majesty while she was not in the state. As I understand it (and I might be wrong here, since such things are usually worded in languages far beyond human comprehension) the GG is the be all and end all so long as the Queen is not in Canada. The Queen, of course, retains the authority to dismiss her at whim, but she may not exercise any other executive power without first entering Canada. And I apologize, I realize my words might have been a bit harsh. I was, however, as I said, quite literally surprised that you've made so many errors, as I kinda have you pegged as one of those detail oriented, triple fact checking people. (-: This is what astounds me ... i don't know your political stripe, but you continually back up Harper with "it may have been unethical but it was legal" rhetoric ... yet you refuse to see the legality and the Constitutional requirements of allowing a sitting Leader fo the Oppostion to run the HOse of Commons when the House has no confidence in the PM. Has Harper perpetrated ethical violations against the people Canada in the past? Yes. Can I do anything about them? Short of inventing a time machine, no. Are they as bad as attempting to govern a country without the authority and consent of the people? Not even close. Harper can break contracts, offer bribes to member's of Parliament and call as many unethical elections as he wants and every other crime he has committed, and he is still governing with the will of the people. Forget the Commons, he still has the confidence of the people, and that is that. In a democracy, in my opinion, there can be no greater crime (hence my earlier references to treason) than to circumvent the democratic process in a bid to gain power. I realize that you may not see it as such, but I think my reasons for believing it the be a circumvention of the democratic process are quite clear and understandable. Once again ... if the government would show good governance and not back-pedal after trying to politically destroy the opposition, and stop conducting covert operations , maybe the country would be better run. The definition of "loss of confidence" in layman's terms, could be "refusing to engage the government" ... so if there is a loss of confidence then the opposition performed their parliamentary duties. You can't constantly force every motion in the House for almost 2 years as confidence motions, and expect the opposition to keep confidence in you ... this was of Harper's making. The Opposition may be digging their own graves by forming a coalition - but it is allowed in our democracy - but Harper is responsible. First off - Harper shares some of the blame. No argument from me. Harper's reckless attack on the opposition - be its origins based primarily in his own ego or as a part of a plot to expose the coalition - has precipitated these events. But Harper has, as you say, attempted to back-pedal. The Commons has shown his teeth and Harper is now aware of them. And he had offered to change his package in exchange for the support of the opposition. Now blame lies directly upon the shoulders of the coalition, who refuse to move on and attempt to form the government that the people wanted. That is the great sin they have committed. An absolute refusal to do what the people have asked of them. Harper has offered, and the onus is on them for not responding, not considering. His previous actions in the house (forcing things through with confidence) are of no consequence - those were in the 40th Parliament, and should have no bearing on the confidence of the house in the 41st (as the Canadian people have shown confidence in Harper following the 40th Parliament, despite his actions). But I am not exactly sure where I was WRONG ..as you claim. A little confused maybe. Governments are voted in four 4 years (unless they lose confidence, and other scenrios, and yes typically this is majorities) ... and all options have been extinguished by the GG? How? ... the leader of the opposition is an option clearly spelled out to in constitutional documents.... that isnt extinguished. It's the same phrase harper used in 2004 "look at all your options" when he had his coalition in the works with the Bloc. Hypocrisy abounds. Set the charge of hypocrisy aside for a moment. I will approach that later. Are they really an option? Says who? You? Me? Precedent? We're in uncharted waters. There is no precedent to suggest that a coalition of three opposing parties, none of whom (or in fact, any two of whom) possess plurality in the House. The closest thing you can find to a similar situation was Borden's Unionist government, who approached and received a mandate from the people (which is really all I'm asking here). Edit: I realize now after posting I never di come back to the charge of hypocracy. In any case, this is not the same as Harper's informal attempt to form a coalition government in 2005 (I think it was 2005 - doesn't really matter in the end). The fact remains that there was no formal coalition formed, only an offer to form the government and attempt to govern without plurality should the Liberals fall. And the GG decided to call an election anyways. Maybe this is what she should do this time as well. Lastly, the most undemocratic thing that could have been done here was prorogue parliament ... especially a mere 7 weeks after an election. You were the champion on here of "the voice of the electorate" ... where is that voice now, for 2 months NO ONE's vote counts ... we have no say, no debate ... while it is allowed under Canadian democracy to prorogue parliament (99% of the time at the end of a session), we have just made a dangerous precendent. The first time in Canadian history our parliament was prorogued without fulfilling most of its legislative agenda, heck without fulfilling any of its agenda, without conducting the will of the people ... and what is even more scary is that no one sees this. As I have mentioned elsewhere I am not happy with proroguement (is that even a word?) of Parliament. It is however, better than allowing the coalition to govern because the mandate and the will of the people still stands. The people would will that action take place now, but the leaders of Parliament have shown themselves unwilling to work together at this time. Perhaps in January, when Parliament reconvenes, the talking heads will be better behaved. I doubt it, but it is my hope. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 4, 2008 16:33:22 GMT -5
So. Who wants to bet that all the MPs take a vacation here, and wait until only a couple days before parliament starts up again to "try" to find some common ground.
I say "try" because I'm skeptical of any act where no effort will be expended.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 4, 2008 16:53:18 GMT -5
Phase I: Create a crisis (what was tabled last week) and get the "coalition" to form and take the bait.
Phase II: Get either a prorogue or non-confidence and an election call.
Prorogue it is. Keep the ads flowing re: the Coalition in bed with Separatists. Hope the Liberals don't jettison Dion and get a new leader.
Phase III: Table a budget at the end of January that is sure to cause non-confidence. Election call.
Phase IV: Election result: Harper majority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I and II complete.
The PCs have to hope now that the Libs don't appoint a new leader who has the acumen to point out what's really happening here.
IMO, the one who wasn't satisfied with the last election results is Stephen Harper. He wanted a majority and didn't get it. If he waits til the next reasonable election call, the Libs will have a new leader. This is his only chance...while Dion is still at the helm of the Opposition. I agree with Skilly. If the Libs were anywhere near intelligent, they'd get rid of Dion now.
----------------------
What my theory is based upon? Harper continually says he "wants to work with the opposition parties to find a solution to our economic crisis." He reiterated that last night in his address.
Yet what he has done since the last election is ZERO....and what he tabled last week was incendiary. Cutting public subsidies for political parties. Rights to strike...etc. Behaving as if he has a majority and addressing anything BUT the economy.
Too bad the Three Stooges were so quick to act. They could have simply turned down his proposals of last week.
Everybody's power hungry in Ottawa right now....and it's totally disgusting.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 4, 2008 17:15:03 GMT -5
Phase I: Create a crisis (what was tabled last week) and get the "coalition" to form and take the bait. Phase II: Get either a prorogue or non-confidence and an election call. Prorogue it is. Keep the ads flowing re: the Coalition in bed with Separatists. Hope the Liberals don't jettison Dion and get a new leader. Phase III: Table a budget at the end of January that is sure to cause non-confidence. Election call. Phase IV: Election result: Harper majority. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase I and II complete. The PCs have to hope now that the Libs don't appoint a new leader who has the acumen to point out what's really happening here. IMO, the one who wasn't satisfied with the last election results is Stephen Harper. He wanted a majority and didn't get it. If he waits til the next reasonable election call, the Libs will have a new leader. This is his only chance...while Dion is still at the helm of the Opposition. I agree with Skilly. If the Libs were anywhere near intelligent, they'd get rid of Dion now. ---------------------- What my theory is based upon? Harper continually says he "wants to work with the opposition parties to find a solution to our economic crisis." He reiterated that last night in his address. Yet what he has done since the last election is ZERO....and what he tabled last week was incendiary. Cutting public subsidies for political parties. Rights to strike...etc. Behaving as if he has a majority and addressing anything BUT the economy. Too bad the Three Stooges were so quick to act. They could have simply turned down his proposals of last week. Everybody's power hungry in Ottawa right now....and it's totally disgusting. I still think it's shaky. Too much hinges on predictable actions of unpredictable people. You need to ensure that Dion and Layton get in bed with Duceppe - by no means a sure thing (really, you just need Dion and Duceppe to get in bed together I guess - you just need to alienate Layton enough to ensure that he votes against whatever confidence motion you're throwing out there as bait). You need to be sure Mme. Jean, a Liberal appointee and someone who is rumoured to be married to a closet separatist, doesn't put the boots to you and appoint the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition the government. And finally you need to be sure that the coalition still has the stomach to bring down the government in January, despite the fact it's obvious an election will be called and that they will lose handily. Like I keep saying, if this truly is orchestrated by Harper, then he's a far better leadership candidate. Who would you rather - the person who set the devious trap, or the people that fell into it? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 4, 2008 17:44:40 GMT -5
I still think it's shaky. Too much hinges on predictable actions of unpredictable people. You need to ensure that Dion and Layton get in bed with Duceppe - by no means a sure thing (really, you just need Dion and Duceppe to get in bed together I guess - you just need to alienate Layton enough to ensure that he votes against whatever confidence motion you're throwing out there as bait). They had to enlist Duceppe's help....they needed the seats. Probability was very high that the GG was going to take the safest route. Try and let cooler heads prevail. If the Libs don't appoint a new leader in this interim....then they will stick together. i.e. the Three Stooges. If the PCs continue their ad campaign....so will the Coalition. To me, it all depends on WHY they want the majority. If it's to mainly look after Alberta's interests, then I have as much of a problem with that as I would have with Duceppe looking after Quebec's interests. And is it really a far cry to think it's been orchestrated, seeing as Layton and Duceppe are as power hungry as they come....and that Dion is still a wet noodle? Harper and his strategists are playing the odds.....and while Dion remains at the helm of the alternative....the odds are pretty good. --------------------------------------------- I'm not a card-carrying, dyed-in-the-wool voter for any one Party. I've voted for what I have thought to be the best person in my riding. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 4, 2008 18:34:45 GMT -5
To me, it all depends on WHY they want the majority. You answered your own question above: Everybody's power hungry in Ottawa right now In fact, you have to be if you want to survive in Ottawa. Not too many altruistic people here. And I appreciate your confidence in me oh. oops. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 4, 2008 18:35:19 GMT -5
Can I vote now? Mine will break the tie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 4, 2008 19:23:35 GMT -5
To me, it all depends on WHY they want the majority. If it's to mainly look after Alberta's interests, then I have as much of a problem with that as I would have with Duceppe looking after Quebec's interests. And is it really a far cry to think it's been orchestrated, seeing as Layton and Duceppe are as power hungry as they come....and that Dion is still a wet noodle? There is a massive philosophical difference on dealing with the economy between the left and the right as well as other issues likle climate and federal/provincial powers. Harper believes in cuttting spending and ONLY getting involved with companies as last resort. Thus the "we will look into going into a deficit if the economy needs it". On the other hand, the Three Stooges have no qulams of spending like it wasn't their money. There is no free lunch. I can spend all night writting up why government just can't spend their way out of recession. Unfortunatly, Harper will now be forced to shovel money out the door simply because he has no choice if he wants to survive. It will be only the degree of who shovels more money, the three stooges with wheel barrels or Harper with a hand basket. In the end, we will ALL suffer from this. |
|
) of the major parties to Rideau Hall and collectively rip them a new arse. 
