Harper's in deep, deep trouble

[daniel]

.... The fixed election date law was not violated. But if you like it (the fixed election date law) can be posted again and again to refute your lie.

No, it was broken.

It was only back in September that Stephen Harper broke his own fixed-date election law to euthanize a minority Conservative administration still five months away from its third birthday.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/628967

And then Harper's lies keep piling up while the public laps it up.

[madmax]

Why do you lie in such ways, is it really all you have? It has been gone over time and time before. The fixed election date law was not violated. But if you like it (the fixed election date law) can be posted again and again to refute your lie.

He hypocritically violated his own fixed election date. It is not a lie. There was no reason that the Prime Minister called the election other then to manipulate the electorate in order to receive a majority government.

Mr Harper would have been unable to find ONE SINGLE TIME in which the government did not have the support of the LPC on any confidence bill or any bill the CPC put forth. It was 48 times in consecutive votes that the CPC ruled with the LPC. Not even a blip in the radar.

If there is any reason that Harper should be gone it is because he broke his own law for political gain.

The government was not defeated.

What Harper has given us is the possibility of TWO elections before his fixed election date because of his won arrogance and opportunism.

People in all circles know that the September Election was a grab for a Majority government and nothing else.

There wasn't even a platform.

Infact what the election did, was turn the CPC easy ride into a gain of a few seats and a far more difficult ride ahead.

The Fact is, Harper wanted an election and he called one. The public should have punished him, and he is lucky they didn't. But that is what happens in sleeper elections.

In the next election, the public will not be asleep.

[madmax]

thank you for responding I should be done my report sunday, what I ask from you is why did you as a liberal vote for Harper? you can help me allot by answering that. My dad said he did because he thought all other party's were going to run a defecit and buy into the stimulous fraud wich to my uderstanding devalues the dollar and will drive us into hyper inflation leaving a debt on his children he does not want.

There was no substance to the Conservative Platform in the September 08 election. There was no "Stimulus" package offered by any political parties. The All political parties campaigned on a balanced budget, but it was the Conservative government that was already running a deficit, and it was going to be alot worse then they were leading on.

Currently your political parties are leaving the youth nothing... let alone servicing the debt. The Debt has been reduced for almost 13 years straight, under both LPC and CPC governments.

Also both governments have stolen from the Employment Insurance fund to pay down the debt, or give large tax breaks to corporations that closed their operations in Canada and left those same employees out of work.

$56 Billion taken between the actions of the two parties.

As for giving corporations "STimulus" monies, the corporate welfare handouts have been the way of Canadian Politics for all Liberal and Conservative governments. They give corporations money and ask little in return, and they receive just that. Very little.

Like you ,when I am old enouph to vote i think i will be a liberal too I see a charming loyal trust worthy Ignatiaff who will lead this country out of this mess, I son't like arogance much and how conservatives try to corupt our system like our health minister in Alberta that locked the oposition out, we need to work in a democracy not a fascist state where opinions are sensored. I also feel strongly against the war Harper waged on Iraq he killed so many of our people with his lies of weapons of mass destruction.

Thanks.

Craig

Unfortuneately the economic policies of the Liberals and Conservatives are nearly identical, with each party flip flopping on issues when in power. Arrogance is generally stronger within the Liberal Ranks then the Conservative ranks, but it is an unfortuneate reality of these political parties.

Prime Minister Harper waged no war on Iraq. Infact his support for the War was as an opposition leader, whereas Mr. Ignatieffs support for the war in Iraq was as a human rights activist. Both sincerely believed the Lies Presented by the Bush Government as fact. However, Mr. Ignatieffs position is the most shocking of the two leaders. I expect a Conservative to walk lock step with a Republican government, whether right or wrong, as long as its done together.

Our Fascist state began as the Paul Martin and Chretian government brought in broad sweeping "anti terrosism" legislation that removes the rights of everyday citizens. This was with the support of the Conservative Opposition.

So, just to set the record straight. Canada is not at war in Iraq. Prime Minister Harper, like Liberal Leader Ignatieff were strong supporters of the Iraq war, but with anything that goes poorly, a politician likes to downplay the whole affair and make piss poor excuses for their stupidity and incompetent judgement.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Even so, he is the Prime Minister. The whole government is his responsibility, and he gets to call the ball because that is how the Constitution says it will happen.

The people are content to let the politicians duke it out in a public forum, then choose to follow whoever they believe to be the last man standing. In fact we often vote against, not for our politicians. With that in mind, I see Iggy in stealth mode, prowling around alot without any major confrontation. This may be a mistake on his part, but perhaps not. For a change we seem to have a politician willing to wait for the right opportunity to attack. Iggyis a little different than what we are used to in the position he is in. Harper is very predictable, Iggy is not.

[Oleg Bach]

Iggy is predictable - he will follow some Trotskite play book - or what ever else is handy - he can not play by ear...he's an old school boy dependent on his trusty books...I don't think it's possible for an professional student and professor to have an original thought.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Iggy is predictable - he will follow some Trotskite play book - or what ever else is handy - he can not play by ear...he's an old school boy dependent on his trusty books...I don't think it's possible for an professional student and professor to have an original thought.

Time will tell, but I do think he is more than a match for Harper in debate.

[Dave_ON]

And where is Mr. Dion now? And Mr. Harper?

Case closed.

Are you offended that Stephen Harper knows how to play the political game (as if that were the sovereign right of Liberals alone)?

I hardly go with offended, just an observation that for all his diatribes Mr. Harper is no different than those who he so vehemently decries. The line between hypocrisy and politics is thin indeed. I appreciate that you can look at him and see that he is simply playing politics like any good politician should, it's those who continue to defend him as the harbinger of all that is good and holy in Canada despite his many gaffes and flip flops that really drive me crazy. To be the PM is to be the centre of criticism Mr. Harper can clearly handle this or simply dismisses it, either way the end result is the same. Let’s call a spade a spade, Harper is a Politian and he will do anything and everything to stay in power, principles be damned. I can accept this, but what I cannot accept is that Mr. Harper is doing this out of the goodness of his heart and because he’s a noble son of the west.

[Dave_ON]

I agree with most everything else you've said, but, I've read the above elsewhere before, and still find myself thinking it's untrue. The infamous King-Byng affair in 1926 was, by my understanding of it, a case where the Prime Minister advised the Governor General to prorogue parliament because a confdence motion was pending and his party was caught in scandal. The only difference seems to be that King recommended an election to follow, whereas Harper did not.

It was a similar situation but not quite the same. The difference is King requested Byng dissolve Parliament and trigger an election to avoid a confidence vote which Byng refused to do citing that an election had happened quite recently and that the Conservatives should be given an opportunity to govern if King no longer had the confidence of the house. Again this was different as the Conservatives were the single largest party in parliament at the time, after the Liberals of course, and they didn't require a coalition to govern from a minority stand point. This was short lived however, as the Liberals and the Progressives got together and defeated the Conservative government which in the end resulted in the desired election. Of course at that point it was too late as a PM that doesn't have the confidence of the house must either drop the writ or resign and if I recall correctly King had lost his seat in the house prior to the whole affair taking place.

Prorogation of parliament with an active confidence motion on the floor is highly irregular and many were surprised the GG didn't use her reserve powers to overrule Harper. Granted the last time a GG ever did invoke those reserve powers was during the King/Byng affair in 1925. The concern I have about this particular precident is that what is to stop any future PM's from doing the same thing any time there is a confidence motion on the floor they know they will lose? This in effect circumvents the checks and balances that are in place for minority governments. Confidence motions are an essential part of minority government and demonstrates the general competance of the ruling party to govern effective. Of course this is slightly different in that an election had just recently concluded and had it been six or so months after the fact it likely would have ended quite differently. However, it is odd that the GG didn't use the King/Byng affair as general guide in making her decision. A privilege of her station is she doesn't have to explain or justify her decision though I'm quite curious what she based it on.

[Smallc]

and he gets to call the ball because that is how the Constitution says it will happen.

As far as I know, the position of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution. It exists by convention only.

[Smallc]

The concern I have about this particular precedent is that what is to stop any future PM's from doing the same thing any time there is a confidence motion on the floor they know they will lose?

I think it will depend on who is Governor General, if and when it happens again. I think the GG may have made the choice that she did because of the division that the situation was creating. I don't think that this decision will necessarily create president for the future as any future situation many have a completely different set of circumstances surrounding it. I think each situation like this is unique. You are right though, if it is used in the future as precedent, it could be very dangerous.

[Dave_ON]

As far as I know, the position of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution. It exists by convention only.

Correct only the lifespan of parliament is mentioned in the constitution as being unable to excede five years. The PM is a tradition setup to keep the government stable, and he doesn't even have to be a sitting member of parliament and can "govern from the hall" as it were. The ball is truely in the GG's court as she is our head of state on behalf of the Queen.

[daniel]

In case anybody is confused, citizen voters elect Members of Parliament. It is the Members of Parliament who selects the government. By convention, it is usually the party with the most members as long as it is supported by the Parliament. If the government is not supported by Parliament, the Governor General has a CHOICE to dissolve Parliament and have an election or appoint the Official Leader of the Opposition to form the Government.

[Molly]

The beauty of having a GG is that a GG does not have hands tied into a hard and fast formula of action.

The GG is an _individual_, with just enough room to practice plain old common sense.

I don't really believe, for all the sniping back and forth, that any other option did make sense. Another election would have been stupid, wasteful, pointless. Appointing the coalition to form government with a lame duck as PM would have been hopelessly unstable and of doubtful validity. Proroguing.... distasteful as it was... gave a good solid backhanded slap to all of the practitioners of hubris, and sent everyone into a corner for a well-deserved time-out.

If no one learned anything, or pulled in their horns, there would be plenty of opportunity to remove the government, and replace it with newly elected representatives.

Gold star to the lady. Gold star to the position.

[g_bambino]

No, it was broken.

No, it wasn't. Harper lies, but he didn't break the law.

[g_bambino]

...[T]his was different as the Conservatives were the single largest party in parliament at the time, after the Liberals of course, and they didn't require a coalition to govern from a minority stand point.

Yes, you're right, that is one of the differences between 1926 and 2008. However, I still see a strong similarity in the catalyst for the request, ie. the threat of a non-confidence motion. Such a scenario does put the Governor General in a pickle, as dismissing ministerial adivce is a big no-no, yet, so is the Prime Minister using the Crown as protection from being unseated by the commons. I do think, though, that Jean's action was correct, and I don't greatly fear any future negative scenarios arising because of it. Proroguing parliament results only in a temporary reprieve for a prime minister; at some point he is going to have to face parliament again. If the PM kept continually advising the viceroy to suspend parliament over and over, the Governor General would no doubt be forced to refuse the advice, as it is his or her job to ensure the continuous and constitutional governance of Canada. I'm also sure that the length of time passed since the last election will play into any decision made.

_[copyedited]

Edited May 5, 2009 by g_bambino

[daniel]

No, it wasn't. Harper lies, but he didn't break the law.

It was as reported by the Toronto Star today. If that was wrong, they would post a correction tomorrow.

..... If the PM kept continually advising the viceroy to suspend parliament over and over, the Governor General would no doubt be forced to refuse the advice, ...._[copyedited]

Don't count on it as Harper is now known to continuously push beyond the boundaries of contempt. At the time of prorogation, in another discussion forum, people were assuming that the GG would have limited his power in things like Senate appointments. Prior to prorogation he's been known to disregard Parliament two other times. There's even a G&M article several months or weeks ago speculating the threats Harper may have made to the GG if she wouldn't had granted the prorogation.

[g_bambino]

It was as reported by the Toronto Star today. If that was wrong, they would post a correction tomorrow.

They should. It says right in the law that no part of it affects the Governor General's powers, which include dissolving parliament and calling elections. All the bill really did was shorten by one year the maximum time a parliament can sit.

Don't count on it as Harper is now known to continuously push beyond the boundaries of contempt.

I'm confident that the Crown cares little for Harper's contempt, and the events of December last year only reinforced that feeling. While I know Harper's ignored some votes by the commons, but because they were merely non-binding motions he's within his rights to do so. I did get the sense, however, that prior to the prorogation, he felt the actual rules somehow didn't apply to him; his "explanation" to Canadians that their governments have legitimacy because they're directly elected by the people was atrociously misleading, and events from 2006 prove he knew better. Then, though it wasn't Harper, it was equally concerning and somewhat telling when John Baird went on camera saying the Conservatives would go above the Governor General... to where? The Queen? But I think Harper was quickly humbled; he was forced to visit the Governor General, she was not required to follow his advice, and, though she did grant his request, she had the wonderful little coup de grâce of not automatically saying yes and making her Prime Minister wait at Rideau Hall for the result, causing him to miss an event he had arrogantly assumed he would be able to attend that same day. A nice serving of humble pie for Mr. Harper, courtesy of Her Majesty the Queen.

_{[ed. to clarify]}

Edited May 5, 2009 by g_bambino

[jbg]

No, that's not what happened, and saying it again and again won't make it true.

Then what did happen? I give up.

[jbg]

Mr Harper would have been unable to find ONE SINGLE TIME in which the government did not have the support of the LPC on any confidence bill or any bill the CPC put forth. It was 48 times in consecutive votes that the CPC ruled with the LPC. Not even a blip in the radar.

If there is any reason that Harper should be gone it is because he broke his own law for political gain.

The government was not defeated.

If you ever read a blacklined "edit" of the crime bill, the Committees were accomplishing without risking a confidence vote what the Opposition deigned not to do in not voting down the government.

[Smallc]

Then what did happen? I give up.

Parliament was to vote non confidence and the government and replace them...completely legitimately...so, the Prime Minister asked the GG to prorogue parliament and she grated the request...completely legitimately.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Smallc

[jbg]

Parliament was to vote non confidence and the government and replace them...completely legitimately...so, the Prime Minister asked the GG to prorogue parliament and she grated the request...completely legitimately.

But isn't the normal sequal to a non-confidence vote an.....election?

[Smallc]

But isn't the normal sequel to a non-confidence vote an.....election?

Just because something isn't what is normally done doesn't mean it's wrong or a coup.

[Molly]

No, JBG.

The normal sequel to a non-confidence vote is a DECISION. Sometimes the right choice is completely obvious, and sometimes not so much, but if the job of GG is practiced only by binding formula, then it would be pointless to maintain the office.

The example set by King-Byng is that the GG can do almost any darned thing he/she figures will be best for the nation.

The lady/ the office is not a rubber stamp.

SURPRISE!

Edited May 6, 2009 by Molly

[Molly]

BTW, going directly to election would have been a completely silly choice, since parliament had, at that point, done nothing whatsoever since the last. A new one could not be expected to provide a different result .

Realistically, her choice was prorogue, or ask the coalition to form government.

[g_bambino]

The example set by King-Byng is that the GG can do almost any darned thing he/she figures will be best for the nation.

Only in very extreme circumstances would that be the case. Normally the Governor General will do what his or her ministers figure is best for the nation, personally staying out of such partisan decision making (publicly, anyway), so that responsibility for government actions rests on the shoulders of the politicians who must face the elected commons. Unfortunately, last year our politicians created the kind of extreme circumstance where the viceroy had no choice but to make a public decison on a political affair, thereby compromising the impartial nature of the office. At the same time, though, the non-partisan nature of the office should make us confident that in such a situation the decisions made were influenced by a need and a constitutional duty to maintain governmental stability, rather than by political gamesmanship or ambitious self-interest.