Machjo Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 It also seems completely pointless if you put it that way. Yes. But since I'm not convinced that the Government always represents the will of Parliament, and thus the will of the people, giving Parliament the power to vote for the ambassador would give it an additional means of ensuring that the Government represent the will of Parliament, and thus of the people, on the international stage. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Smallc Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 Yes. But since I'm not convinced that the Government always represents the will of Parliament, The government has to have confidence. That's all that matters. As long as they keep confidence, they are allowed to be Canada's voice. Quote
Machjo Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 The government has to have confidence. That's all that matters. As long as they keep confidence, they are allowed to be Canada's voice. Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think an elected ambassador would be more democratic. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Smallc Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 And I don't think that ambassadorships are about democracy. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) But that's what he doesn't get, and it seems that you don't either. He doesn't have a majority because the Canadian people don't want his brand of reform. They aren't looking for the change that he wants to bring. It obviously isn't that important to the people.Stephen Harper has a minority and he has to work within that. He hasn't tried to do that. He doesn't want the opposition to have any say even when he's getting his own way. I dislike Harper for one reason (ok, a few reasons, but one in particular). He dislikes most of what this country stands for. He dislikes the Constitution when it doesn't agree with him, and he dislikes the courts when they don't agree with him. As I said earlier in this thread, it truly is his job to set the governments agenda, but it isn't the oppositions job to accept it. Harper has to work within the framework of parliament that the Canadian people choose, and he doesn't seem capable of doing that, because he doesn't beleive in compromise (except when it suits him of course). The Conservatives now hold 144 seats - a very strong minority. Are you saying that you would reluctantly accept his right to follow his agenda if he had a majority with another 11 seats because that's what the Canadian people would have chosen? If you say yes - even with a few caveats, you're a fair individual. If you can't bring yourself to say yes, you're a partisan whose arguments will continue to ring hollow. I admit, it's a hypothetical question.....but one that can help define one's political character. By the way - I would accept a Liberal Majority. My only caveat is that I would only feel obligated to support, perhaps reluctantly, the major planks of their electoral platform - those that were clearly and openly articulated - at least in principle. Edited July 13, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 I would accept the will of parliament in that case. Stephen Harper would also have a much easier time doing what he wanted to do. He doesn't seem to be very good with the situation that the Canadian people have left him with though. Quote
Machjo Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 And I don't think that ambassadorships are about democracy. You're right. They're not. But I don't see why they couldn't be in some cases, such as Canada's ambassador to the UN, at least to some degree. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Tawasakm Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 Senators are appointed to reflect more or less equal regional representation, for long terms of office-- appointed by the governor General upon recommendation by her advisor, the Prime Minister, when vacancies arise. (Which means that the Prime Minister chooses.)It's.... something of an anachronism, but it works. It takes away a great deal of the partisanship from the senate (though by no means all of it). It ends up being a very true 'house of sober second thought'. Thanks for that. I'm glad to hear it works but it still seems a little strange to me not to directly elect your own senators. To each their own though! Quote
g_bambino Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 The problem is not a governmental issue, it's a party issue. Given that my immediate reaction after reading the article was that the author was trying to address what the concept of responsible government used to control, I believe you're right. Parliament used to be one of the checks on a prime minister's power; if he made the wrong recommendation for an appointment, was being too secretive about Cabinet actions, & etc., it was the job of the House to keep him in line. However, since parties have each become more and more centralized, if, as the article notes, one has a majority in the Commons, its leader is no longer accountable to that chamber; what right-minded MP would nowadays vote against the head of his party? So, I don't think the solution lies in tinkering with the constitutional conventions; they've functioned well enough for centuries. Rather, it's the parties and their organization that are the new factor in all of this; it's more than coincidence that trouble started around the same time as party structures began to morph. Secret ballots for voting in the Commons may be an option; though, the drawback with that is constituents wouldn't know how their MP voted on an issue. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 Liberals tend not to hate the institutions of this country. They seek change when necessary, but never for the sake of it. Except, of course, for John Bryden, John Manley, Peter Donolo, and all the other Liberal dorks who were behind the so-called "Millennium Project" to turn Canada into a republic for 2000. (I know that was nine years ago, but it's an illustration that some Liberals want change for change's sake... Or their own personal glory.) Quote
Smallc Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 Yes, you're right. Liberals aren't innocent of anything. Most Liberals though, and the people who used to belong to the Progressive Conservative party tend to be committed to the institutions of this country...in general anyway. Quote
Argus Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 Yes, you're right. Liberals aren't innocent of anything. Most Liberals though, and the people who used to belong to the Progressive Conservative party tend to be committed to the institutions of this country...in general anyway. Most of them ought to be. Unfortunately, it costs a lot to house such people, be it prisons or psychiatric hospitals. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 Given that my immediate reaction after reading the article was that the author was trying to address what the concept of responsible government used to control, I believe you're right. Parliament used to be one of the checks on a prime minister's power; if he made the wrong recommendation for an appointment, was being too secretive about Cabinet actions, & etc., it was the job of the House to keep him in line. However, since parties have each become more and more centralized, if, as the article notes, one has a majority in the Commons, its leader is no longer accountable to that chamber; what right-minded MP would nowadays vote against the head of his party? So, I don't think the solution lies in tinkering with the constitutional conventions; they've functioned well enough for centuries. Rather, it's the parties and their organization that are the new factor in all of this; it's more than coincidence that trouble started around the same time as party structures began to morph.Secret ballots for voting in the Commons may be an option; though, the drawback with that is constituents wouldn't know how their MP voted on an issue. I would go for the secret ballot. Or.. perhaps we might examine how things work in the UK. I won't say that MPs routinely vote against their leader, but it does happen frequently. There is not the same level of party discipline over there as there seems to be over here. The PM cannot expect automatic unanimous approval from his MPs if he goes against the collective will. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 I just find it ironic that Harper did not want scrutiny of his appointments commissioner. And then her threw his hands up. Scrutiny? There was nothing wrong with the man. What you guys did had nothing whatsoever to do with examining his ability to do the job and everything to do with yet another greasy attempt to smear the Conservatives for political advantage. The Warren Kinsella party continues to march along in the gutter, slogging deeper every day. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Sir Bandelot Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 "Prime Ministers cannot- must not- get bogged down in the details of government or try to micromanage the business of the nation. Rather, it is their Job to establish priorities, develop strategies, supervise crises, handle the toughest problems, communicate the complicated issues in simple ways and delegate as much as possible to their ministers." - Jean Chretien, My Years as Prime Minister Harper fails on all counts. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 13, 2009 Author Report Posted July 13, 2009 Scrutiny? There was nothing wrong with the man. What you guys did had nothing whatsoever to do with examining his ability to do the job and everything to do with yet another greasy attempt to smear the Conservatives for political advantage. The Warren Kinsella party continues to march along in the gutter, slogging deeper every day. Harper said my way or the highway. That is the path he walks. He is the one that pulled his guy from contention and then didn't try to resolve the issue. And then on judicial appointments, Harper bypassed his own system even though he had more than half a year to go through with it. What was the hold up there? None. The Liberals supported Cromwell so it isn't like Harper thought his selection was in any danger. Quote
Argus Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 "Prime Ministers cannot- must not- get bogged down in the details of government or try to micromanage the business of the nation. Rather, it is their Job to establish priorities, develop strategies, supervise crises, handle the toughest problems, communicate the complicated issues in simple ways and delegate as much as possible to their ministers."- Jean Chretien, My Years as Prime Minister Harper fails on all counts. Ah yes, we all should take advise from the man who, during 13 years as prime minister, set a record for number and duration of vacations while in office, as well as number of hours put on government jets to get him to and from his vacation destinations. Aside from that, he accomplished =NOTHING= in his 13 years in office. There were no new initiatives, programs or policies of any distinction or importance for he had no vision, no ideas, and very little interest in anything beyond being in power and the perks that brought. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 Harper said my way or the highway. That is the path he walks. He is the one that pulled his guy from contention and then didn't try to resolve the issue. He didn't pull him from contention, you guys voted him out. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jdobbin Posted July 13, 2009 Author Report Posted July 13, 2009 He didn't pull him from contention, you guys voted him out. That was the committee. Harper didn't bring it to a vote in the House. I remind you that Harper didn't need a vote at all. He could have appointed Morgan straight off. Instead, he scrapped the whole commission. That was the one thing that all parties had agreed to up front. Harper wanted his guy or he would drop the commission. Sorry, not exactly the committed to the idea if he was going to do that. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 That was the committee. Harper didn't bring it to a vote in the House.I remind you that Harper didn't need a vote at all. He could have appointed Morgan straight off. Instead, he scrapped the whole commission. That was the one thing that all parties had agreed to up front. Harper wanted his guy or he would drop the commission. Sorry, not exactly the committed to the idea if he was going to do that. Yes....he could have appointed him - that's the irony. But instead, true to his word, he didn't and he put a process in place. Then he picked someone who by all acounts was an exceptional choice, except in the small minds of this blustering, partisan committee. And make no mistake about it - Gwyn Morgan was put through an emabarrassing charade - even called a racist. Is it any wonder that Harper would not want to put another candidate through the same humiliating process? Shame on them. Quote Back to Basics
jdobbin Posted July 13, 2009 Author Report Posted July 13, 2009 Yes....he could have appointed him - that's the irony. But instead, true to his word, he didn't and he put a process in place. Then he picked someone who by all acounts was an exceptional choice, except in the small minds of this blustering, partisan committee. And he could taken it to a full vote of the House which he didn't. And make no mistake about it - Gwyn Morgan was put through an emabarrassing charade - even called a racist. Is it any wonder that Harper would not want to put another candidate through the same humiliating process? Shame on them. My personal view that as a Conservative party member and major donor to the party, I thought he was not non-partisan. Shame on Harper for withdrawing the whole program despite support from all the parties for it. Hard to believe he was really in favour of it when there was no follow through. Quote
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.