ReeferMadness
-
Posts
3,953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by ReeferMadness
-
wtf. He just established the unambiguous precedent in 2008. How can it be "over" in 2015?
-
Several days is AWESOME. Last time, Harper took several months and used the time to tell lies. In 2015, we're talking about "the powers of the Sovereign", which is based in the magical belief that being born into a certain family gives you some superior power or superior ability to rule. Why should anyone have a problem with that? And I'm sure this worked wonderfully in the 1800's. In 2008, however, Harper found a loophole and gamed the system in a way that allowed him to essentially continue the election by other means until early 2009. There's an unambiguous precedent now. And like I said, anyone who's elected and doesn't like their chances can prorogue and either hope something happens or try to make something happen that will change their odds. Unscrupulous leaders could take this places it was never intended. The Pandora's box is now open. Actually, the reason that the rules aren't clear is because they aren't. There were a range of different opinions (from people far more knowledgeable than either of us) as to whether Jean made the right call and there still are. And the reason that most people don't understand our system is it doesn't make any sense in the context of the 21st century. It looks like it was designed in the 19th century to help Britain and the Monarchy maintain control over a fading empire. Oh. It was.
-
I get precedents. In this case, however, I see 2 problems. The first is that, from what I've read, there were few precedents (some claim none) across all Westminster systems over hundreds of years. If you have to reach back 125 years to a time when the political context was very different, how good is your precedent. The second is I don't think it's necessary. There aren't that many options and someone should be able to lay down some rules how this stuff works. And proroguing isn't the issue - it's using prorogation to avoid going to the parliament specifically to avoid a non-confidence vote you know you're going to lose, particularly when you haven't even established that you have the confidence in the first place. This is anti-democratic. As is much of what Harper has done.
-
This has nothing to do with the MP's - it's the way the system has evolved and parties have taken control. Theoretically the PM is accountable to parliament but we all know that hasn't be reality in a long time. Maybe never in Canada. The system is so stupid and broken. Did Chretien prorogue parliament to avoid a confidence vote? The idea of the MP's deciding the PM is wonderful but I doubt that could happen without a constitutional amendment.
-
So you're saying we're stuck with a dumb system because it's embedded in the constitution. That doesn't mean that the GG can't deign to explain to her Majesty's subjects (the people, not the corgis) the rationale behind his/her actions. And Houston, we have a problem. We now have a precedent where a party that wins a plurality but not a majority can show up in the house, deliver some kind of update and suss out whether it can get one of the other parties to go along with it. And if not, it can go back and demand prorogation (now there's an unambiguous precedent) to allow it time to drum up public support (apparently lying to the public is perfectly acceptable). That's just awesome.
-
It sure was - it was not the finest moment in Canadian democracy.
-
Really. I didn't realize he had held any confidence votes before this happened. See this is where I have a problem. Because another GG did something dumb a century and a half ago, Jean gets to do something dumb now? Harper was trying to avoid parliament expressing its confidence in him (or lack of thereof) - and she allowed him to do it. Then he went out and lied to the public about there being a "coup d'etat" which caused the Liberals to chicken out. Ignatieff was a disaster. Again with the ancient history. Let's be honest with ourselves. The original purpose of the GG was to allow our betters in Britain to ensure that the colonies didn't do something stupid. Gradually, it evolved into an appointed referee role. Of course, there is a basic problem when the referee is appointed by one of the opposing sides but let's forget that for the moment. We should be allowed to understand the basis of the referee's ruling. Clarkson is dead right on this.
-
In the Globe and Mail, Adrienne Clarkson has written a piece calling for more transparency in the case of GG judgement calls like the one that was made by Michaelle Jean in 2008. She seems to call Jean's decision into question when she discusses the use of prorogation. I think it would be better if we had some clear rules on this stuff rather than relying on centuries of rare cases that are used as precedent.
-
-
Good luck with that.
-
Most likely scenario at this point is a Liberal minority.
-
You're right. We've beat this to death and the debate is going in circles. And there are 2 threads. Harper has stopped talking about it - meaning that it has become nonproductive for even the Conservatives. So, time to give it up.
-
So, you want to pass a law to restrict her rights because our society is intolerant? If I dyed my hair purple and put a ring through my nose, it would likely impair my chances at a job interview. If I didn't bathe for a week, I know it would. How many things would you like to outlaw?
-
I understand what seat belt laws are attempting to accomplish and I understand that there are good statistics that demonstrate their efficacy. Can you say the same for a ban on the niqab?
-
Harper's newest best buddies, Rob and Doug Ford, who are apparently organizing a rally for him, are the people he called "a bunch of losers" during the last Toronto mayoralty race.
-
Strategic Voting - It needs to be done
ReeferMadness replied to marcus's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
So, you're argument is it's OK to lie to people as long as they are gullible enough to believe you. -
Exactly. The ceremony is just that. Ceremony.
-
LPC Campaign Co-Chair Advises TransCanada
ReeferMadness replied to cybercoma's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Sounds like he's saying that the Libs are just as bad as the Cons. -
Is it working? That remains to be seen. I suspect that it's contributing to the public image of the Conservatives as a bunch of opportunists whose main work is to manipulate issues to political advantage.
-
It seems that a Vancouver entrepreneur is willing to put up $1 million to fight bill C51 because it's bad for business.
-
Another Conservative supporter comes out to "help" Harper. I'll bet the Conservative brain trust wish they could keep guys like this hidden under a tarp at least until the election is over.
-
What? Women can wear pants? It's just a misogynist plot.
-
Yup - by all accounts she was a shoo-in. Then came Harper's Muslim-baiting politics and now it's a race.
-
The debt never gets paid down because politicians pander to right wingers demanding tax cuts. Most, if not all, of the debt that Harper piled up was because of ineffective, ideologically motivated tax cuts for people who already had more than enough.
-
I wasn't aware intolerance was one of our values.