PoliticalTalk Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) Because Jean is expected to act in accord with political convention, does this mean that she was in a sense "forced" to agree to prorogation? After all she is just following what was done in the past, why is blame being put on her for the "decsion" she made? It was in a sense pre-determined. Edited March 3, 2009 by PoliticalTalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Wow....I've seen double posts...but never a triple! Welcome aboard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Wow....I've seen double posts...but never a triple! Welcome aboard. Sounds bright! This member may force a few to think - I'm out of here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalTalk Posted March 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) Sounds bright! This member may force a few to think - I'm out of here! You sound bright yourself i must say Edited March 3, 2009 by PoliticalTalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 The GG was stuck in a no-win situation, so she found safe harbor in precedent. Can't say I blame her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalTalk Posted March 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Sounds bright! This member may force a few to think - I'm out of here! hey who were you directing that comment to, and what do you mean by it. Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Because Jean is expected to act in accord with political convention, She is expected to, but she does have discretion (in theory). Regardless, there are many who believe that she made the right decision. I (a Liberal) am among those who think the decision was a good one. There were many things for her to consider in this instance. It appears that she did do a lot of considering (if the length of the meeting between her and the Prime Minister is any indication). In actuality though, speculation is quite irrelevant. The Crown has spoken, and that is that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalTalk Posted March 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 She is expected to, but she does have discretion (in theory). Regardless, there are many who believe that she made the right decision. I (a Liberal) am among those who think the decision was a good one.There were many things for her to consider in this instance. It appears that she did do a lot of considering (if the length of the meeting between her and the Prime Minister is any indication). In actuality though, speculation is quite irrelevant. The Crown has spoken, and that is that. I think this GG descretion has only been used a handful of times in Canadian Poltical History. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Because Jean is expected to act in accord with political convention, does this mean that she was in a sense "forced" to agree to prorogation? After all she is just following what was done in the past, why is blame being put on her for the "decsion" she made? It was in a sense pre-determined.I agree with what she did.That being said, when there is a minority government a GG does have some decisions to make. She is not acting as a rubber stamp then in determining if the best way to resolve a Parliament that has lost confidence in its leadership is an election, a minority government led by another party or a coalition? Or maybe a finding that there was no confidence loss. In that role she does have responsibilities, and does the holder of the reserve powers in any Parliamentary system. Think Israel and the fact that its ceremonial President had to decide if Livni or Netanyahu would have a chance to form a coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I think this GG discretion has only been used a handful of times in Canadian Political History. Very true. Despite that fact, the Reserve Power of the Crown does exist and could be used (though it would probably only be used under the most serious of circumstances). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 She is expected to, but she does have discretion (in theory). Regardless, there are many who believe that she made the right decision. I (a Liberal) am among those who think the decision was a good one. I'm also now a Liberal, but was a strong coalition supporter, only to get Harper to start acting like the Prime Minister of Canada and not the Leader of the Conservative Party. I never really wanted the Coaltion to take over because Dion would never have been strong enough with Harper in Oppositon. The GG really had no choice, but the fact that it took so long, I think she left Harper with few options. Fix this or else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I agree with what she did. Or maybe a finding that there was no confidence loss. I also agreed with her actions, but there was definitely a confidence loss. Harper would have lost that vote and he knew it. Why else would he take such desperate actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Because Jean is expected to act in accord with political convention, does this mean that she was in a sense "forced" to agree to prorogation? After all she is just following what was done in the past, why is blame being put on her for the "decsion" she made? It was in a sense pre-determined. Very much so. As unusual as a request to prorogue Parliament was, having a GG say "no" would have been quite extraordinary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Very true. Despite that fact, the Reserve Power of the Crown does exist and could be used (though it would probably only be used under the most serious of circumstances). It's a dangerous road. Lord Byng has something of a dirty name in Canada (and at the end of the day King formed another government anyways), and I'm told by Australian acquaintances that Kerr is hardly seen in a favorable light either. The Governor General defying a Prime Minister is only supposed to happen under the most extreme of conditions, and while proroguing Parliament to escape a confidence vote is no small thing, I think the GG didn't view it as an extreme enough situation to invoke her reserve powers. Now we can't possibly know what strings were attached, but it wouldn't surprise me if Harper was told that this was a one-shot deal and if the House moved against the Tories, she wasn't going to be his safety net. Mind you, I think if Harper had fallen at the end of January, we'd again, by precedent, seen an election, and not the now-dead Coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Mind you, I think if Harper had fallen at the end of January, we'd again, by precedent, seen an election, and not the now-dead Coalition. Actually, by convention, I'm not sure that would be allowed. A coalition would actually be the more conventional option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Actually, by convention, I'm not sure that would be allowed. A coalition would actually be the more conventional option. What convention? The convention is that when a minority government falls, an election is called. There are only a few scattered cases in the whole history of the Westminster system where anything else has happened. There is very little precedent of any kind in our system for another bloc of Parliament to form a new government when the current government falls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 There is very little precedent of any kind in our system for another bloc of Parliament to form a new government when the current government falls. There is also very little precedence for holding an election within 3 months of the last election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 There is also very little precedence for holding an election within 3 months of the last election. Yes, it would have been exceptional, but nowhere near as exceptional as asking some other group in Parliament to form a government. Maybe that sort of thing was common in the 17th and 18th centuries before the Westminster system had become largely fixed, but by the Victorian era, when a government fell, an election was called. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I'm also now a Liberal, but was a strong coalition supporter, only to get Harper to start acting like the Prime Minister of Canada and not the Leader of the Conservative Party.I never really wanted the Coaltion to take over because Dion would never have been strong enough with Harper in Oppositon. You voted for Dion. You wanted him Prime Minister. If he was Prime Minister Harper would be Opposition. Now you suggest that you NEVER wanted the coalition to take over. TOROKAKA!! You were a strong advocate of the coalition, even promoting it after DION took the helm. You continued to support the coalition once Ignatieff became leader of the LPC right up unti the hours before his rejection of it. However, the moment that Iggy said NO to the coalition, you changed your tune overnight. I supported the right of the coalition to take power, as they have done in past governments both federal and provincial. I also oppose the Prorogation because, I don't believe any government has the right to hide behind the GG when they don't want to face a vote in the house of commons. I held reservation on the coalition and then openly opposed it when it was established that Dion the idiot would be its leader. However, my reasons for supporting a coalition without Dion was that something was needed to get Harper to act like the Prime Minister and not a Conservative backroom strategist with to many bitter years in opposition. Dion could never pull this off under any circumstances. When the "STRONG" coalition supporters turn on a dime, it is proof that there wasn't alot of substance to the coalition. I am well aware of MANY LIBERALS on these forums who came out against the coalition from the get go, or failed to support it for valid reasons. Some disagreed with prorogation. Some did agreed with it. But You are the one poster who changes your position by the minute and by the post. It is difficult to take your word of support for anything on anyone seriously. It could change in a weeks time or the latest LPC press release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Yes, it would have been exceptional, but nowhere near as exceptional as asking some other group in Parliament to form a government. Maybe that sort of thing was common in the 17th and 18th centuries before the Westminster system had become largely fixed, but by the Victorian era, when a government fell, an election was called. I don't know of any British minority governments where "falling" is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Because Jean is expected to act in accord with political convention, does this mean that she was in a sense "forced" to agree to prorogation? After all she is just following what was done in the past, why is blame being put on her for the "decsion" she made? It was in a sense pre-determined. I don't think that there was much question that parliament would be prorogued. The alternative was an unstable Coalition government with Dion as leader, with a new leader set to come when the Liberal leadership happened. It really wasn't what Canada needed at a time like this. However, there were some things that the GG could have done differently, because the decisions she made couldn't have been any more fortuitous for Harper if he was the GG himself. 1) The length - did it really need to be that long? 2) Forbidding any political propaganda during that time. Essentially, Harper was able to spread his deceitful message about the coalition being undemocratic for six weeks thus destroying any chance the Coalition had. Regardless, it looks like it doesn't matter now, as Harper is now doing whatever the opposition wants in a desperate bid to stay in power, even though it is destroying a full decade of debt repayment by the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 I don't think that there was much question that parliament would be prorogued. The alternative was an unstable Coalition government with Dion as leader, with a new leader set to come when the Liberal leadership happened. It really wasn't what Canada needed at a time like this. However, there were some things that the GG could have done differently, because the decisions she made couldn't have been any more fortuitous for Harper if he was the GG himself. 1) The length - did it really need to be that long? 2) Forbidding any political propaganda during that time. Essentially, Harper was able to spread his deceitful message about the coalition being undemocratic for six weeks thus destroying any chance the Coalition had. Regardless, it looks like it doesn't matter now, as Harper is now doing whatever the opposition wants in a desperate bid to stay in power, even though it is destroying a full decade of debt repayment by the Liberals. GG does take coucil from abroad - I am sure that her Majesty was not going to after all these hundreds of years---- give into the French faction and allow them to take part in rule of one of her former colonies...If I was the Queen I would say - in my best steely eyed British tone "Never - shut it down - no one plays untill the French know who is boss".. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 GG does take coucil from abroad - I am sure that her Majesty was not going to after all these hundreds of years---- give into the French faction and allow them to take part in rule of one of her former colonies...If I was the Queen I would say - in my best steely eyed British tone "Never - shut it down - no one plays untill the French know who is boss".. Are you suggesting that the parliamentary dispute was an attempt by France to rule Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Are you suggesting that the parliamentary dispute was an attempt by France to rule Canada? That's not too too far from the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 (edited) That's not too too far from the truth. The real question is why was this coalition, that just had Bloc support, about giving power to the French, when Harper's 2004 coalition, which actually included the Bloc, wasn't about giving power to the French? This is being kept quiet now but don't think that at least one of the opposition parties won't use this next election campaign. Harper's speech suggesting that 'separatists' and 'socialists' would be part of the government, and then in his own letter, speech and CTV interview in 2004-05 telling Canadians that his Coalition with 'separatists' and 'socialists', was the best thing for the country; not another election. He won't be able to use a 'that was then, this is now' defense, when he's pulling up Ignatiff lectures from 1991. He will have to answer for his campaign of lies to keep his job. Edited March 7, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.