Don't Agree with Another Election? Sign the Petition

[Topaz]

Amen

It ONLY a problem if you are Alliance/Conservative supporter.

[Smallc]

Smallc: I understand the Canadian parliamentary process just fine, thank you for your concern. I am not suggesting pure anarchy and throw away our system of government. I AM suggesting that perhaps if the kids can't play nice and get along, maybe they need a timeout to force them to look at the welfare of the country and Canadians, not just themselves. Quite frankly, THAT is more important than parliamentary procedure.

A time out from what? The government has to keep confidence, or they can't govern. We need a way to resolve issues of confidence, and usually that involves an election. What you're proposing completely undermines that.

[jschell]

A time out from what? The government has to keep confidence, or they can't govern. We need a way to resolve issues of confidence, and usually that involves an election. What you're proposing completely undermines that.

I'm not proposing anything, I merely said that it might be a good idea. I wonder if you might feel as strongly is it were the roles were reversed in Ottawa and the Liberals were in the position that the Conservatives are now.

Yes, we do need a way to resolve issues of confidence I agree with that 100%, but when issues of confidence come up almost immediately after the people have given a mandate to the government (a weak one at that, I'll concede), it smacks more of blind ambition on the part of opposition leaders rather than a matter of confidence. If the government has not been given an ample chance to govern, there can be no matter of confidence. The opposition (regardless of the parties involved) can not call a motion of confidence purely based on the fact that they don't like the leader of the party in power.

[Smallc]

You obviously don't understand. People don't give mandates to governments here. The Conservatives don't have a mandate to govern. The opposition can remove confidence at any time, and an economic statement is not really a stupid reason for doing so. You may not like it, but it's the way that things are...and I would feel the exact same way if roles were reversed.

[g_bambino]

Let's face it, no matter who is sitting in the Prime Minister's seat, a minority government does not work. All we get is a constant back and forth power struggle...

Minority governments can, and have, worked. Much of what we consider major elements of the modern Canadian identity - our flag and health care system, for instance - were initiated during periods of minority government.

I see no reason to shorten the life of parliament even further (I don't know what benefit was brought with the reduction to four years); the political will of the populace is expressed via the House of Commons, and so the government of the day should be required to count on the approval of the elected representatives in order to remain in power. It's simple and it's worked for centuries.

[Oleg Bach]

Minority governments are dictatorships...looks like once we switch from one, we will simply go to another. Who ever has the most money rules. Look at America, they got rid of Bush and installed the new frount man Obama - who still represents the same group of high living crooks..

[ToadBrother]

I'm not proposing anything, I merely said that it might be a good idea. I wonder if you might feel as strongly is it were the roles were reversed in Ottawa and the Liberals were in the position that the Conservatives are now.

Yes, we do need a way to resolve issues of confidence I agree with that 100%, but when issues of confidence come up almost immediately after the people have given a mandate to the government (a weak one at that, I'll concede), it smacks more of blind ambition on the part of opposition leaders rather than a matter of confidence. If the government has not been given an ample chance to govern, there can be no matter of confidence. The opposition (regardless of the parties involved) can not call a motion of confidence purely based on the fact that they don't like the leader of the party in power.

It's the nature of minority governments. They are inherently unstable, even when the leaders are trying to reach a consensus. When they're trying to tweak the rest of Parliament's collective noses within weeks of winning an election, well, that doesn't help.

We've had periods like this before, and I suspect that this phase is about to end. At best, I think CAnadians will tolerate one final minority government, and then we'll probably be back to majorities.

The whole idea of a "mandate" is entirely alien to our system of government. Presidents get mandates.

Now, if you want to debate altering or completely tossing the system, I'm all ears. I like certain aspects of the American system; in particular the fact that the House of Representatives only sits for two years, and the Senate is a continuous body, with only a third of its seats up for grabs every two years, allowing far more continuity in government than our system, where everything basically stops dead for an election.

But unless you're talking about change, the reality is that Governments only serve at the pleasure of Parliament and the Queen (or whoever represents her), and if the House ceases to have confidence, that's the end of the road. That's the way our system has essentially functioned for over three hundred years, and it seems odd that only now is everyone going "Oooh my, this is soooo wrong."

[ToadBrother]

I'm not proposing anything, I merely said that it might be a good idea. I wonder if you might feel as strongly is it were the roles were reversed in Ottawa and the Liberals were in the position that the Conservatives are now.

Yes, we do need a way to resolve issues of confidence I agree with that 100%, but when issues of confidence come up almost immediately after the people have given a mandate to the government (a weak one at that, I'll concede), it smacks more of blind ambition on the part of opposition leaders rather than a matter of confidence. If the government has not been given an ample chance to govern, there can be no matter of confidence. The opposition (regardless of the parties involved) can not call a motion of confidence purely based on the fact that they don't like the leader of the party in power.

It's the nature of minority governments. They are inherently unstable, even when the leaders are trying to reach a consensus. When they're trying to tweak the rest of Parliament's collective noses within weeks of winning an election, well, that doesn't help.

We've had periods like this before, and I suspect that this phase is about to end. At best, I think CAnadians will tolerate one final minority government, and then we'll probably be back to majorities.

The whole idea of a "mandate" is entirely alien to our system of government. Presidents get mandates. Prime Ministers just happen to be the head of the party that got the most seats in the House.

Now, if you want to debate altering or completely tossing the system, I'm all ears. I like certain aspects of the American system; in particular the fact that the House of Representatives only sits for two years, and the Senate is a continuous body, with only a third of its seats up for grabs every two years, allowing far more continuity in government than our system, where everything basically stops dead for an election.

But unless you're talking about change, the reality is that Governments only serve at the pleasure of Parliament and the Queen (or whoever represents her), and if the House ceases to have confidence, that's the end of the road. That's the way our system has essentially functioned for over three hundred years, and it seems odd that only now is everyone going "Oooh my, this is soooo wrong."

Edited September 8, 2009 by ToadBrother