Does Stephen Harper Know This Is Canada?

[gordiecanuk]

I just finished publishing a blog post about the Senate appointments, and included this Harper quote:

"If Senate vacancies are to be filled, however, they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for."

In Canada we don't get to vote for a particular government, we only get to vote for the individuals we want to represent our riding in the House of Commons. No wonder so many Canadians don't understand our system of government....even the guy leading the ruling party doesn't understand it.

[Vancouver King]

Our govt in hiding is now exploring a tried and proven method of governance, one tested over the years by conservative provincial govts in Alta. and BC - governing by order in council, decisons made by cabinet edict completely by-passing the scrutiny of our elected parliament.

A bus load of senators appointed and an auto sector bailout - all accomplished by fiat and without the nuisance of parliamentary debate.

[August1991]

I just finished publishing a blog post about the Senate appointments, and included this Harper quote:

"If Senate vacancies are to be filled, however, they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for."

In Canada we don't get to vote for a particular government, we only get to vote for the individuals we want to represent our riding in the House of Commons. No wonder so many Canadians don't understand our system of government....even the guy leading the ruling party doesn't understand it.

Gordie, you don`t seem to understand our system of government either. We have a representative democracy and our current representatives have made decisions on our behalf - as we empower them to do.

----

More broadly Gordie, you don't seem to understand what many ordinary Canadians do understand. Democracy ultimately amounts to getting rid of the buggers if enough of us don't like them. Like it or not, so far, alot of Canadians are willing to go along with Harper rather than any alternative.

Edited December 23, 2008 by August1991

[gordiecanuk]

Gordie, you don`t seem to understand our system of government either. We have a representative democracy and our current representatives have made decisions on our behalf - as we empower them to do.

----

More broadly Gordie, you don't seem to understand what many ordinary Canadians do understand. Democracy ultimately amounts to getting rid of the buggers if enough of us don't like them. Like it or not, so far, alot of Canadians are willing to go along with Harper rather than any alternative.

Point out my error then oh wise and august one...How is it that 38% of the population voting for a particular party allows the man leading that party to lay claim to being 'popularly elected'???

So now that Harper only has about 27% support among Canadians, then we shold be able to get 'rid of the bugger' ???

Edited December 23, 2008 by gordiecanuk

[jdobbin]

Like it or not, so far, alot of Canadians are willing to go along with Harper rather than any alternative.

Like it or not, there are a lot of Canadians who probably feel let down by the 18 Senate appointments.

[Vancouver King]

What arrogance and corruption of our democratic institutions. What is so difficult to understanding the spectacle of locking parliament's doors to avoid the judgement of 63% of voters 2 months ago?

[gordiecanuk]

What arrogance and corruption of our democratic institutions. What is so difficult to understanding the spectacle of locking parliament's doors to avoid the judgement of 63% of voters 2 months ago?

Vancouver...ultimately democracy at its root means 'consent of the governed'. And on that score an awful lot of Canadians were upset with the prospect of a Coalition government, even though it may be perfectly legal and legitimate.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...but I strongly believe the Liberals will ultimately vote with the Conservatives, giving Harper back the confidence of parliament (however tepid) while at the same time pointing out where he believes the Tories are lacking.

[Barts]

I just finished publishing a blog post about the Senate appointments, and included this Harper quote:

"If Senate vacancies are to be filled, however, they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for."

In Canada we don't get to vote for a particular government, we only get to vote for the individuals we want to represent our riding in the House of Commons. No wonder so many Canadians don't understand our system of government....even the guy leading the ruling party doesn't understand it.

Stephen Harper knows exactly how Canada works. That's why he visited the Governor General to ask her to save his sorry political a**.

What Stephen Harper also knows, however, is that many Canadians don't know how Canada works. And, as an opportunistic, unrepentant liar, he exploits that ignorance to the detriment of Canadians and to the benefit of his ambition.

[g_bambino]

Stephen Harper knows exactly how Canada works. That's why he visited the Governor General to ask her to save his sorry political a**.

What Stephen Harper also knows, however, is that many Canadians don't know how Canada works. And, as an opportunistic, unrepentant liar, he exploits that ignorance to the detriment of Canadians and to the benefit of his ambition.

I'm of this mind as well. Harper appeared to well understand the workings of parliament when he was leader of HM's Loyal Opposition, but suddenly now that he's head of HM's government, everything's different. All I can hope now is that Ignatieff will make a decent leader (as a fellow alumni of his high school I of course think he's greatly qualified! )

[peijay]

the distain and total disrespect shown by harper and his gang for parliament is disgracefull . I can't wait for him to be turfed and I hope it comes sooner than later. his way of governing is typical of most dictators . maybe he's getting lessons from Putin in Russia.

they disgust me so much ,I change the channel every time a conservative hack, or perish the sight ,harper himself appears on tv.

[noahbody]

And, as an opportunistic, unrepentant liar, he exploits that ignorance to the detriment of Canadians and to the benefit of his ambition.

I think you have Harper confused with Jack Layton.

[gordiecanuk]

Noahbody...I can't stand Layton either, a friend of mine is a life long dipper and he invited me to Layton's launch party for the leadership of the NDP, BNL were preforming so it was a no brainer for a pol junkie

Although they may be diametrically opposed politically...I find them both to be very 'packaged', they're both as genuine as Amway salesmen.

[Mr.Canada]

I love it that the left is going crazy. The whole left mindset is this...IF you don't agree with every single thing we say then you're akin to a fascist. LOL.

[Cameron]

Give it up with the % of the vote BS. This country elects MP's from constituencies, not based on the % of people that voted.

OMG Numbers!:

1997 - Liberals won 155 seats with 38.5% of the vote (OMG! The majority of the country didn't vote for them, Coalition!)

2000 - Liberals won 172 seats with 40.8% of the vote. (Again! Call the Military!)

It doesn't matter what % of the vote you get. It matters where you win.

Here are some more numbers to make your heads hurt.

1997 - Bloc 44 seats with 10.7% vs. NDP 21 with 11% (Dippers need a break!)

2000 - Bloc 38 seats with 10.7 % vs. NDP 13 with 8.5% (Whops! Didn't get one!)

2004 - Liberals 135 seats with 43.8%

Amazing! Sourced information!

Edited December 23, 2008 by Cameron

[segnosaur]

I just finished publishing a blog post about the Senate appointments, and included this Harper quote:

"If Senate vacancies are to be filled, however, they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for."

In Canada we don't get to vote for a particular government, we only get to vote for the individuals we want to represent our riding in the House of Commons. No wonder so many Canadians don't understand our system of government....even the guy leading the ruling party doesn't understand it.

While it is true that technically we vote for only our own local MP, the fact is that historically and by the rules of parliament MPs voted to office under a particular banner will tend to support their party in votes in the house of commons. So, while it violates the letter of the law to say people 'elected the government', it doesn't necessarily violate the spirit of the law.

[Keepitsimple]

Point out my error then oh wise and august one...How is it that 38% of the population voting for a particular party allows the man leading that party to lay claim to being 'popularly elected'???

So now that Harper only has about 27% support among Canadians, then we shold be able to get 'rid of the bugger' ???

Gordie, Gordie, Gordie. Look up representative democracy and try and understand what plurality means. But also, it's Harper who has the 38% and you might be surprised, but that's the same percentage that allowed Jean Chretien's Liberals to win a majority government. You are confused Gordie, because you didn't pay attention in school.

[Mr.Canada]

Gordie, Gordie, Gordie. Look up representative democracy and try and understand what plurality means. But also, it's Harper who has the 38% and you might be surprised, but that's the same percentage that allowed Jean Chretien's Liberals to win a majority government. You are confused Gordie, because you didn't pay attention in school.

He'll probably come back and call you a fascist. What was it? Godwin's Law? Who said every online discussion degrades into Hitler given enough time. Something like that.

[g_bambino]

it's Harper who has the 38% and you might be surprised, but that's the same percentage that allowed Jean Chretien's Liberals to win a majority government.

That still forgets that if two smaller groups band together to form one larger than 38%, then the Conservatives no longer have a plurality. The government would then fall, the coalition could commanded the confidence of the House, and could therefore be appointed to government. In such a hypothetical (yet almost real) situation, would all those on this board who seem to agree with Harper's new take on parliamentary democracy then agree that the coalition government had been popularly elected? After all, it would be made of two parties that more than 38% of the population voted for.

_{[ed for better clarity]}

Edited December 24, 2008 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

Would all those on this board who seem to agree with Harper's new take on parliamentary democracy then agree that the (hypothetical) coalition government had been popularly elected? After all, it would be made of two parties that 38%+ of the population voted for.

If the two parties ran as a coalition and voters knew what it was they were agreeing to beforehand...

[Mr.Canada]

That still forgets that if two smaller groups band together to form one larger than 38%, then the Conservatives no longer have a plurality. Would all those on this board who seem to agree with Harper's new take on parliamentary democracy then agree that the (hypothetical) coalition government had been popularly elected? After all, it would be made of two parties that 38%+ of the population voted for.

It makes no difference. The electorate doesn't like it, that's what counts. Not what us hyper-partisans think about it. People who follow politics as much as we do is very minimal. People believe what they they see on TV, just like that movie- Wag the Dog.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[gordiecanuk]

Gordie, Gordie, Gordie. Look up representative democracy and try and understand what plurality means. But also, it's Harper who has the 38% and you might be surprised, but that's the same percentage that allowed Jean Chretien's Liberals to win a majority government. You are confused Gordie, because you didn't pay attention in school.

No confusion here, there's just a lot of anger being spewed from all sides. Cons are upset at the prospect of being ousted...just like the 60% or so of Canadians who voted against the Cons were upset when Harper's party won re-election. Who has the "pluarity"?

Yes, it is somewhat convenient for Libs/Dippers to combine their vote totals and to toss in the Bloc for support...that I will grant. And frankly I'm more disposed to another election based on the fact that democracy at its core means 'consent'....and it does strike me that a significant % of people in this country are not happy with the notion of a coaltion.

Personally I'm sick of voting every year, (more when you add in the 4 other levels of gov't) and would prefer to see a coalition form and then in 1-2 years we can vote again...we never get what we vote for anyway. Harper has broken plenty of his election promises...like everyone before him. If a coalition does form Canadians would have the chance to render judgment in the next election...ho hum, democracy never ends...there's always another vote.

[g_bambino]

If the two parties ran as a coalition and voters knew what it was they were agreeing to beforehand...

That would neither ever happen, nor would it be necessary. No party would know whether or not a coalition was even possible until after the election was over, and once the ballots were tallied, the two parties would already have collectively received the necessary votes to permit them to overtake whatever single party had won the most seats alone.

[gordiecanuk]

If the two parties ran as a coalition and voters knew what it was they were agreeing to beforehand...

Dancer...a serious question. Harper promised no deficits, now he says we're going to have one. He ran on Senate reform, now he's appointed a PQ separtist.

Okay...so Harper made certain promises or commitments and didn't live up to them. No biggie, he's not the first and won't be the last to break an election pledge. But we don't immediately have an election every time our elected officials do something we don't like. Crimeahneeey sakes, we'd be voting 3 times a day.

Why is it such a big deal that the Libs/Dippers form a coalition? Because they didn't run as one??? And why do you care what they do anyway? You didn't vote Lib/NDP did you?

[M.Dancer]

Why is it such a big deal that the Libs/Dippers form a coalition? Because they didn't run as one??? And why do you care what they do anyway? You didn't vote Lib/NDP did you?

Because the NDP are the plague and the antithesis of what many Liberal supporters value, like free markets, private property and competition.

now he's appointed a PQ separtist.

Ex separatist. He's no longer attracted to the idea.

[Cameron]

You can play with the percentage numbers all you want...80% of Canada DID NOT vote for the NDP to be in government and 70% DID NOT vote for the Liberals to be in government. You can spin all you want.

It all comes down to after the Christmas break what the GG will do. If the coalition still stands and askes to run parliment, then she could grant them that request, she could also call another election.

It's a dead issue until then.