Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[Smallc]

No, you don't get it. They work for you, within the system that we have. You can't discard the system on your own, and so far, Canadians haven't decided that they want to get rid of it. Oh, and parliament works for 33M of us...not you.

[g_bambino]

That way the electorate can recoup a small portion of what these idiots are costing it. Kind of like the real world, produce or find another line of work.

How about you just convince the populace to stop electing minority parliaments, seeing as the make up of parliament depends entirely on them.

[Wilber]

No, you don't get it. They work for you, within the system that we have. You can't discard the system on your own, and so far, Canadians haven't decided that they want to get rid of it. Oh, and parliament works for 33M of us...not you.

They are not working for us now, they are working for themselves. It is not my fault Parliament isn't working, I'm not in it. They are. So who's fault is it? I'm used to taking responsibility for my own screwups, not copping out by claiming they are in someone else's best interest. You have your opinion who they are working for and I have mine. That is one great thing about this country, we are entitled to express our opinions.

[Wilber]

How about you just convince the populace to stop electing minority parliaments, seeing as the make up of parliament depends entirely on them.

I have no problem with minority parliaments. It's politicians who have a problem with them.

[Smallc]

They are not working for us now, they are working for themselves.

Like all people, politicians of course do things for themselves. That said, many of them do things for the people they represent, and not all of those people agree. A majority of members don't agree with the Conservatives, and it seems they can't support them at this point. Our system relies on the government maintaining the support of parliament, and if the government can't maintain that support, then they can't govern, and parliament has to vote them down. It isn't difficult, and it isn't a bad thing. It simply is, and it works.

[jdobbin]

Unfortunately we can only kick out some of the culprits. How do we fire the whole dysfunctional bunch, all spoil our ballots? Then what?

I guess that is why we have this issue of regionalism. Unfortunately, you can't vote out someone else's MP.

[Wilber]

I guess that is why we have this issue of regionalism. Unfortunately, you can't vote out someone else's MP.

So we are subject to their blackmail forever. I still like the idea of no pay for no work though.

[Wilber]

Like all people, politicians of course do things for themselves. That said, many of them do things for the people they represent, and not all of those people agree. A majority of members don't agree with the Conservatives, and it seems they can't support them at this point. Our system relies on the government maintaining the support of parliament, and if the government can't maintain that support, then they can't govern, and parliament has to vote them down. It isn't difficult, and it isn't a bad thing. It simply is, and it works.

Many MP's do great constituency work. I've run across a few and wouldn't argue that for a second but Ottawa is another animal. It's all about power and who will wield it.

In the real world people don't quit when the going gets tough, they can't afford to. They would head over to D'Arcy McGee's and hammer out a deal over a couple of pints because they had no option. These people don't have to do that because we let them off the hook. Makes no pay for no work look even better.

[Smallc]

In the real world people don't quit when the going gets tough, they can't afford to.

Except they aren't quitting.

[Wilber]

Except they aren't quitting.

Of course they are. The difference is they expect to continue getting paid while they expect us to hire them back.

[Smallc]

They don't expect us to hire them back at all. Most of them work very hard to get elected again.

[jdobbin]

So we are subject to their blackmail forever. I still like the idea of no pay for no work though.

They don't get paid during elections.

Edited September 12, 2009 by jdobbin

[g_bambino]

It's politicians who have a problem with them.

Well, I've no idea what will make you happy, then. You accuse me of mistrusting too much our elected representatives because I believe in unelected counterweights, yet simultaneously demand moratoriums on elections because you mistrust our elected representatives.

I don't know. Maybe party power needs to be diminished; permit more choice for voters, more competition for candidates, so that the politicians will have to work harder and better to attract and maintain support. I sometimes think the House of Commons could merely do with four seats - one each for Harper, Layton, Ignatieff, and Duceppe - as everyone else just seems to be a mouthpiece for either in that quartet. We should be looking to the UK and Australia to see why their parliaments are identical in almost every way to ours but only we have managed to end up with such a dysfunctional Commons. The first distinction that comes to mind is: the Bloc. What effect does its presence have on the stability of parliament? The answers my lie in some of those questions; they certainly aren't in a banning of elections as some kind of incentive to get politicians to work together.

[Wilber]

Well, I've no idea what will make you happy, then. You accuse me of mistrusting too much our elected representatives because I believe in unelected counterweights, yet simultaneously demand moratoriums on elections because you mistrust our elected representatives.

I want them to do their job. I'm actually quite confident they are capable of doing it if push comes to shove and given the right incentive. We just need to change the system enough to give it to them. I don't consider electioneering as part of their job so keep it out of the House. I'm not asking for moratoriums on elections, I am asking them to do what we elected them to do. When I elect an MP, I am not electing someone to plan how to engineer the next election.

Constituency work is important. Many MP's do a great job of helping their constituents such as dealing with the bureaucracy and many do valuable committee work but in Ottawa, it pretty much ends there. That is all we get when we elect a representative. Others make the decisions and our reps have to abide by them or else. Any opinions of their own they might have, they express at their peril. Sorry, but I don't like that.

I don't know what the answers are either. I throw out these ideas because I think the system needs to be challenged and should have to defend itself. That is healthy. There is nothing worse than sitting around congratulating yourself on how good you are thinking you need no improvement. That goes for any individual or organization. Parliament is an institution that has evolved over many years. It has changed a great deal. I don't know why anyone would think that evolution is complete and we have finally perfected it.

Anyway, I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.

[Goat Boy©]

The Liberal party didn't get most of the money and you know that. The Liberal party itself actually seems to have had very little to do with the scandal. It was perpetrated by a few people and there was no proven political involvement of any real substance. We can't go around pretending things happened one way just because we wish they would have.

Does this not also include services rendered in the party's favor in return for cash, as well as votes purchased?

[Goat Boy©]

It is very much a reason for an election. It means that the government isn't doing what the house wants, and that's a problem.

It means the opposition sees a chance to gain grounds, and advance their own position.

[DrGreenthumb]

Wilbur you still havn't answered as to what you think of a coalition. You know that is the only logical conclusion, the only feasable alternative to an election? In a minority, if the leader of the party with the most seats can not get a long with enough of the rest of the elected members of parliament to govern then we either have to have an election, or Parliament must choose someone else to be the leader. A majority of people in this country do not want Stephen Harper to be PM. So if you think that the majority of people should decide how the country is run then you should have welcomed the coalition, that would have avoided a useless election, because that coalition would have been MORE representative of a variety(and majority) of Canadians views.

I guess you will also be writing a letter to Harper demanding that the conservative party cough up the money to pay for the last election that Harper called. An election Harper called because he wanted the opportunity to seek more absolute power by going against a weak liberal leader and a financially weakened Liberal party? Dion passed every damn thing the cons brought forward and Harper called an election anyway. If legislation is passing one can hardly say that parliament is dysfunctional, yet that is what Harper told us, and the dupes on this board that support his fascist ass bought it hook line and sinker.

[Goat Boy©]

Again, we still can, it simply requires a broad consensus of a majority of Canadian legislators in some cases, and now by convention, it requires a vote by the people.

I was of the impression that it required a consensus majority, just to legislate the formula for constitutional reform?

Actually executing said reform, another tiger to fight all together?

Is this not correct?

[Goat Boy©]

A majority of people in this country do not want Stephen Harper to be PM.

A majority also did not want Stephanie Dianne to be PM either, Ignatieff, Jack as well.

So if you think that the majority of people should decide how the country is run then you should have welcomed the coalition, that would have avoided a useless election, because that coalition would have been MORE representative of a variety(and majority) of Canadians views.

Not at all, the coalition polled absolutely terrible. Canadians wanted the member of government they voted for, not '+ 2 additional.'

I guess you will also be writing a letter to Harper demanding that the conservative party cough up the money to pay for the last election that Harper called. An election Harper called because he wanted the opportunity to seek more absolute power by going against a weak liberal leader and a financially weakened Liberal party? Dion passed every damn thing the cons brought forward and Harper called an election anyway. If legislation is passing one can hardly say that parliament is dysfunctional, yet that is what Harper told us, and the dupes on this board that support his fascist ass bought it hook line and sinker.

Harper's policy on the last election was bull$hit, and the current crop of Liberals is doing, exactly the same thing. I guess the Liberals can pay for this election too eh? And pay back AdScam? All of it....

They're all crooks, order of priorities:

1) My seat

2) My Parties status

3) My pension

4) The voters

[DrGreenthumb]

A majority also did not want Stephanie Dianne to be PM either, Ignatieff, Jack as well.

Not at all, the coalition polled absolutely terrible. Canadians wanted the member of government they voted for, not '+ 2 additional.'

Harper's policy on the last election was bull$hit, and the current crop of Liberals is doing, exactly the same thing. I guess the Liberals can pay for this election too eh? And pay back AdScam? All of it....

They're all crooks, order of priorities:

1) My seat

2) My Parties status

3) My pension

4) The voters

The coalition polled poorly only because conservative ministers lied about it, as did the network of conservative talk radio hosts etc. The only people who were totally against it were conservatives anyway, most NDP, Liberals and Bloc voters weren't. I didn't hear any lies about coup d'etats or any of that bullshit when it was harper, layton and duceppe considering forming a coalition to take down paul martin. Conservative lies and propaganda was responsible for the the negative response to the Liberal led coalition.

A coalition would have worked cooperatively and represented the wishes of far more canadians than the minority of people that support the Harper fascits.

Just because Harper is a complete asshole that can't get along with others does not mean that a better leader could not find common ground with the other parties.

I welcome an election, even though I am NDP I hope iggy gets a minority. Iggy would be FAR more capable of leading a parliament that consists of differing views. Harper is only capable of ruling over bootlickers who will follow his every command, compromise is not in him. I can't wait till he is defeated.

[Smallc]

It means the opposition sees a chance to gain grounds, and advance their own position.

Just as the Conservatives did last fall.

[Smallc]

I was of the impression that it required a consensus majority, just to legislate the formula for constitutional reform?

? The formula is already legislated. To make a change to something written in the Constitution, the formula can vary.

[Goat Boy©]

The coalition polled poorly only because conservative ministers lied about it, as did the network of conservative talk radio hosts etc. The only people who were totally against it were conservatives anyway, most NDP, Liberals and Bloc voters weren't. I didn't hear any lies about coup d'etats or any of that bullshit when it was harper, layton and duceppe considering forming a coalition to take down paul martin. Conservative lies and propaganda was responsible for the the negative response to the Liberal led coalition.

A coalition would have worked cooperatively and represented the wishes of far more canadians than the minority of people that support the Harper fascits.

Just because Harper is a complete asshole that can't get along with others does not mean that a better leader could not find common ground with the other parties.

I welcome an election, even though I am NDP I hope iggy gets a minority. Iggy would be FAR more capable of leading a parliament that consists of differing views. Harper is only capable of ruling over bootlickers who will follow his every command, compromise is not in him. I can't wait till he is defeated.

Yes, because of all those Liberal & NDP voters, just drooling over all of the absolute truths coming out of Harper's mouth.

Come, the coalition was BS, the country didn't want it.

[Goat Boy©]

Just as the Conservatives did last fall.

Hey, I'm non-partisan, I criticize all parties equally.

As a Neo-Libertarian, the NDP is something of my arch nemisis, but I can appease with their raison d'etre, and they do, from time to time, do us some favors. I just wish they could pull their F'ing pants up out here in BC, get rid of that psychopathic woman, and at the very least run some sort of platform.

[Goat Boy©]

? The formula is already legislated. To make a change to something written in the Constitution, the formula can vary.

I would argue that Meech Lake & Charlottetown represent a strong argument that this is not correct.