Governing "As If He Had a Majority"

[jbg]

Since the Quebec bi-elections, it has become apparent that none of the non-governing parties, except maybe the NDP, would like to go to the polls. Apparently, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is not doing its job; opposing.

They seem willing, for example, to allow the passage of an unacceptable (to them) Throne Speech, Crime Bill, etc. Democracy is not well-served by an Opposition that will not take the government down, for fear that many of its MP's will lose their seats and vesting of pension rights.

Harper is being tendered all of the benefits of being a majority PM, with the voters cut out of the loop. I suspect everyone politically alert enough to be on this Board knows what the voters would do, if given a chance. One of the benefits of a Parliamentary system over what we have in the US is that the voters have more opportunities to have input into the makeup of the government. This offsets the lack of checks and balances that ensures that legislation reflects a genuine consensus.

Joe Clark promised that he would "govern as if he had a majority". Harper made no such promise, not being foolish. Yet that is exactly the result he has achieved, especially since the Quebec bi-elections since only one party need support him, and two of those parties, the Bloc and the Liberals, are gunpoll-shy.

What gives?

[maldon_road]

Joe Clark promised that he would "govern as if he had a majority". Harper made no such promise, not being foolish. Yet that is exactly the result he has achieved, especially since the Quebec bi-elections since only one party need support him, and two of those parties, the Bloc and the Liberals, are gunpoll-shy.

What gives?

When the largest opposition party is not ready for an election it gives the PM more leverage to govern. Harper knows it would take a really egregious bill for the Libs to vote against them. So he can plan the legislation accordingly. And when he gets an issue he can take to the public - boom, he forces an election.

Every minority party says it will govern as if it has a majority. None do, of course except Joe Who.

Edited October 22, 2007 by maldon_road

[jbg]

Every minority party says it will govern as if it has a majority. None do, of course except Joe Who.

Harper did not say he would, and apparently is governing as if he had a majority.

[maldon_road]

Harper did not say he would, and apparently is governing as if he had a majority.

Effectively he has.

[old_bold&cold]

Harper has governed the way he should. If he governed like a majority in a minority position, we would have had an election by now. People say foolish things, when trying to describe Harpers methods and ways, but clearly if he did run the government in such a rough shod way, would it not be up to the opposition to then bring the government down. So, that being said, I feel that Harper has run the government as it was designed to be run, and the majority rules. He could not pass anything if the majority did not support it. The only time that the majority took Harper to task was with following kyoto, and they only did that when it was not madeas a confidence motion.

The real culprits in all of this are the oppositions. They are the ones who can control what actually gets past in this government. Harper has been very astude in ensuring only those things he wants done, and are also within what the majority would support, have been introduced. That is why he has been so successful as he has been. It seems though that few people are willing to give him that credit though.

Face it, when it comes to being able to operate within a minority government, Harper is head and shoulders above all the others. They all accuse him of pushing his own agendas and not seeking consensus of the others, yet the oppositions pass the things. How is this Harpers fault? There is not any one better suited to be PM then Harper is at this moment. Can anyone even think of Layton as PM? or Dion? Lets not forget Duceppe? How about May? Scarey isn't it? So, before we go picking a fight about how Harper is a big bad wolf, in sheeps clothing, remember he is really the only one in the whole pack, that can be looked at as being PM, without laughter bursting out at the seams.

The day Harper holds a vote, on something that is condidence and it is denied, then you can say he governed that day, as if he had a majority, when he did not. Until then, Harper just governs for the majority of the people, otherwise things would not pass the votes.

[Wilber]

The opposition must believe the government does have a consensus when it comes to public opinion or they would bring it down.

[jbg]

He could not pass anything if the majority did not support it. The only time that the majority took Harper to task was with following kyoto, and they only did that when it was not madeas a confidence motion.

I wonder how a properly educated public would consider a joke like Kyoto. I'm not certain enough of the answer to want that to be an election issue, but frankly the public should know that Kyoto/global warming is an elite issue having very little to do with anything that benefits the public, and a lot to do with picking their pockets. Frankly, it's an issue where the "ruling class" has shown a great disrespect for people who struggle from paycheck to paycheck.

Face it, when it comes to being able to operate within a minority government, Harper is head and shoulders above all the others.

Certainly above Clark or (while not officially, effectively a minority government) Campbell. Pearson did fairly well, but he could count on NDP support for almost anything.

There is not any one better suited to be PM then Harper is at this moment. Can anyone even think of Layton as PM? or Dion? Lets not forget Duceppe? How about May? Scarey isn't it?

More hilarious than anything.

The day Harper holds a vote, on something that is condidence and it is denied, then you can say he governed that day, as if he had a majority, when he did not. Until then, Harper just governs for the majority of the people, otherwise things would not pass the votes.

I'd love the Liberals to explain how many of their positions benefit the public.

[Higgly]

There is grumbling in the Liberal party that Dion wanted to bring the government down on the throne speech and the party blocked him. This is the problem with the Liberal Party. It is run by the Party, rather than the politicians. How else could they end up with a bozo like Ignatieff standing for leader?

[jbg]

How else could they end up with a bozo like Ignatieff standing for leader?

Great sense of humor. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[jbg]

This page, on the on the NDP's weekly mailer (link) is striking in how much it agrees with my opening post. The Liberals have forfteited, perhaps, any moral authority they have ever had. Clearly, they are putting their members' incumbency and benefits over Canada's interests.

See sample image linked below.

[WestViking]

Despite demands and threats made prior to the throne speech, opposition leaders have placed self-interest above service to their constituents and to Canada. Mr. Duceppe made a motion to amend Mr. Dion’s amendment to the Throne Speech. Mr. Dion and Mr. Duceppe sought to fundamentally change portions of the throne speech, in effect reversing stated government policy. Mr. Layton sat on the sidelines urging Mr. Dion to do the right thing and defeat the Conservative government.

When it came to voting, Dion and Layton refused to support Duceppe’s motion. Then Layton and Duceppe refused to support Dion’s motion. Finally, Dion refused to support Duceppe and Layton in a vote against the throne speech he had roughly trashed days earlier. We must conclude that we cannot take opposition attacks on the government seriously.

Opposition parties must admit that either they have put the self-preservation above the public interest or that their attacks on the government are frivolous. One thing is very clear; opposition attacks on the government are not based on principle or in the public interest.

Dion, Duceppe and Layton have lost credibility with energetic attacks that they are not prepared to follow through. Partisan politics based on principles of convenience is repulsive, and is clearly not parliamentary opposition in the public interest.

[maldon_road]

How else could they end up with a bozo like Ignatieff standing for leader?

Or for that matter, Rae or Dion?

[jbg]

Or for that matter, Rae or Dion?

They all had their comedic potentials, no doubt.

But correct me if I'm wrong. Weren't "Rae Days" days of sunshine?

[maldon_road]

They all had their comedic potentials, no doubt.

But correct me if I'm wrong. Weren't "Rae Days" days of sunshine?

and a 20% wage cut.

[Michael Bluth]

There is grumbling in the Liberal party that Dion wanted to bring the government down on the throne speech and the party blocked him. This is the problem with the Liberal Party. It is run by the Party, rather than the politicians. How else could they end up with a bozo like Ignatieff standing for leader?

If you are right, and I suspect that you are, this is a very troubling sign for Dion.

The leader should lead. He should have decided whether or not an election was forced.

He may have lost the election, but at least he would have been guaranteed he would make it to one.

[Topaz]

Have anyone of you Harper supporters watched them in question period? You can't get a straight answer from them! They are like 17 years olds with a beer in their hand and think its a big party to made fun of the party asking the question! Is that how you want your money spent? I believe there are by-elections coming up by the end of the year and the Libs hope to gain more seats there. Yes, the Libs do have problems within, but its nothing like what happend to the PCers. I kinda miss the Fed PC's and don't they would be acting like the conservatives are! The voters now realize what going on and they will watch and when the election does comes they will vote.

[Wilber]

You must be new to watching question period.

[maldon_road]

You must be new to watching question period.

Spot on. Martin became known as Mr Dithers because that is how he sounded answering a question.

[Michael Bluth]

I believe there are by-elections coming up by the end of the year and the Libs hope to gain more seats there.

All four are seats that were already held by Liberals, so it would be tough for them to make gains.

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in SK was squeaked out by the Liberals in 2006 by 67 votes. Definitely not a guaranteed hold.

Vancouver Quadra, Willowdale and Toronto Centre should all be easy holds for Dion.

Poor Dion. Anything but a sweep in these by-elections, with big margins of victory in three of the four ridings, will be seen as further evidence of his weak leadership.

[maldon_road]

Poor Dion. Anything but a sweep in these by-elections, with big margins of victory in three of the four ridings, will be seen as further evidence of his weak leadership.

And a loss in any of them will ensure he is dead meat.

[Michael Bluth]

And a loss in any of them will ensure he is dead meat.

Losing that Saskatchewan riding won't be a big deal. But one of the other three and you are totally right.

[jbg]

And a loss in any of them will ensure he is dead meat.

Even in Desneth��Missinippi�Churchill River ?

[maldon_road]

Even in Desneth��Missinippi�Churchill River ?

The Liberal Party put Dion on notice with the loss of Outremont. One more loss of a Liberal seat in a by-election then the knives will be out.

[jbg]

The Liberal Party put Dion on notice with the loss of Outremont. One more loss of a Liberal seat in a by-election then the knives will be out.

Some of my early sarcasm aside, I believe Dion and the Belmonts and his fellow Liberals are doing the country a major disservice. They have a duty to trigger an election when Parliament is not functining properly. A party that is willingly absorbing legislation fundamentally hostile to its agenda in order to "duck and cover" from the electorate is craven and cowardly.

[maldon_road]

Some of my early sarcasm aside, I believe Dion and the Belmonts and his fellow Liberals are doing the country a major disservice. They have a duty to trigger an election when Parliament is not functining properly. A party that is willingly absorbing legislation fundamentally hostile to its agenda in order to "duck and cover" from the electorate is craven and cowardly.

But Parliament is not malfunctioning. Stevie Wonder (to continue the musical analogy) is spoon feeding the HofC with bills the Libs don't have the gonies to vote down and cause an election. Craven, of course, but these are Liberals. They have the ethics of a whorehouse accountant.

I'm waiting for the bill to remove long guns from the gun registry. See how many rural MPs dare vote against it.

Edited October 27, 2007 by maldon_road