Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[Smallc]

I really don't understand what you're saying. The formula is set (there never needed to be a referendum...now there probably has to be by convention) and you simply have to use it. That doesn't mean that using it is easy.

[Wilber]

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.

I don't have a big problem with coalitions but ideally you want the party which holds the greatest number of seats to be part of it. Maybe a majority of voters didn't want Harper as PM but even fewer wanted Dion or Layton.

If those had been the rules at the time, I would definitely expect the Conservatives to pick up the tab for the last election. But they weren't.

[Goat Boy©]

I really don't understand what you're saying. The formula is set (there never needed to be a referendum...now there probably has to be by convention) and you simply have to use it. That doesn't mean that using it is easy.

Can the formula be executed to derive an acceptable answer? I believe, no.

Thus, it may as well not exist. So long as the Quebec question hangs in the air, I do not believe our constitution will ever be amended.

[g_bambino]

I don't have a big problem with coalitions but ideally you want the party which holds the greatest number of seats to be part of it. Maybe a majority of voters didn't want Harper as PM but even fewer wanted Dion or Layton.

Then perhaps we need to change our party system so that party leaders aren't automatically made prime minister. It would go a long way in dispelling this myth that the Prime Minister is directly elected like a president and a coalition is akin to an undemocraitc coup.

Apparently Canada is the only country with a Westminster parliamentary system wherein party leaders are chosen at conventions. This format of picking leaders makes the one selected far less accounable to other party members, which may well be why MPs are so ineffectual in the Commons here but have more clout in the Commons of the UK, where party leaders are selected by the MPs themselves.

[Smallc]

Party leaders in Canada aren't chosen at conventions anymore at the federal level, at least not for the Liberals and Conservatives.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Then perhaps we need to change our party system so that party leaders aren't automatically made prime minister. It would go a long way in dispelling this myth that the Prime Minister is directly elected like a president and a coalition is akin to an undemocraitc coup.

Apparently Canada is the only country with a Westminster parliamentary system wherein party leaders are chosen at conventions. This format of picking leaders makes the one selected far less accounable to other party members, which may well be why MPs are so ineffectual in the Commons here but have more clout in the Commons of the UK, where party leaders are selected by the MPs themselves.

I agree, assuming we are going to stick with the system we have which doesn't have a separate election for the top job, I think the PM should be chosen by elected representatives, not unelected party members.

[Goat Boy©]

I agree, assuming we are going to stick with the system we have which doesn't have a separate election for the top job, I think the PM should be chosen by elected representatives, not unelected party members.

I also think the voters ballot should not have a party affiliation next to the name. Voters should at least know enough to know whom is which, which I don't see to be the case.

Just consider the Obama campaign, when Howard Stern went to the streets of New York showing McCains platform with Obama's name.....people were overwhelmingly in favor, regardless of what he was selling.

[g_bambino]

Party leaders in Canada aren't chosen at conventions anymore at the federal level, at least not for the Liberals and Conservatives.

Huh? Are you referring to how candidates for party leader can be uncontested?

[Smallc]

The Liberals and Conservatives have both decided that one member one vote will be the way from now on. I believe the Bloc and the NDP have the same system.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

The Liberals and Conservatives have both decided that one member one vote will be the way from now on. I believe the Bloc and the NDP have the same system.

But they still have conventions where the members gather to rally and vote, like in the States, don't they?

[Smallc]

Not anymore I don't think. The Liberal one was to be the last one as far as I know. There will be policy conventions, but not more leadership conventions.

[DrGreenthumb]

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.

I've never heard Harper or any con tell the truth. They were willfully misleading Canadians as to the nature of the coalition, lying and fearmongering, the only two things a conservative is good at.

I don't have a big problem with coalitions but ideally you want the party which holds the greatest number of seats to be part of it. Maybe a majority of voters didn't want Harper as PM but even fewer wanted Dion or Layton.

Actually a majority of Canadians wanted someone other than Harper. A majority of people voted for parties that would have voted with the liberals in the coalition. They would have had the confidence of the house, and should have been given the chance to govern. If anyone pulled a coup d'etat and acted undemocratically it was Harper when he ran away like a cowardly bitch and prorogued parliament rather than face a confidence vote. Harper is the one who subverted our democracy, not the coalition.

Coalitions are formed when the party with the more seats than any other can't keep the confidence of the house. They happen when a majority of elected members find the ruling party's agenda impossible to support. Those elected members can find enough common ground to keep government working.

PS when i say Harper acted like a cowardly bitch, i mean he acted like a scared female dog.

[Goat Boy©]

I've never heard Harper or any con tell the truth. They were willfully misleading Canadians as to the nature of the coalition, lying and fearmongering, the only two things a conservative is good at.

I see. So Harper is clearly lying, and misleading all those innocent Canadians who can't think for themselves. No free thinking Canadian did not want the Coalition to succeed.

Actually a majority of Canadians wanted someone other than Harper. A majority of people voted for parties that would have voted with the liberals in the coalition.

A majority of Canadians also wanted somebody other than Dion, Layton & Duceppe.

They would have had the confidence of the house, and should have been given the chance to govern. If anyone pulled a coup d'etat and acted undemocratically it was Harper when he ran away like a cowardly bitch and prorogued parliament rather than face a confidence vote. Harper is the one who subverted our democracy, not the coalition.

I see, so if acting within the guidelines of government is undemocratic, what then is the current action of the Liberals attempting to dissolve parliament for no apparent reason?

And why, should a coagulation that the majority of the Country disproved of be given a chance to govern? By the polls, Canadians preferred:

A) Status quo

Election

C) Coalition

Overwhelmingly against another election, the figure was something like 73%, yet still preferable to a coalition.

If the country was so in favor of this, why was Dion removed for executing it? Why is Ignatieff against it, after all, it should still be a viable alternative correct?

By our own, CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/1069-cbc-results-dec4-final.pdf

CON support peaks at 44% due to coalition.

CON - 44%

LIB - 24.1%

NDP - 14.5%

BQ - 9.2%

GREEN - 8.1%

Q. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper will likely be defeated when Parliament next has an opportunity to vote. The opposition parties want to replace the Conservatives with a coalition made up of Liberals and New Democrats led on an interim basis by Stéphane Dion. Based on this, which of the following is closest to your view?

-Parliament taking a break for a month or so to see whether the Conservatives can get the confidence of parliament when it comes back into session

37%

-The proposed coalition of Liberals and New Democrats replacing the Conservative government within the next few weeks

28% (Only received 56% from LPC, shocking)

An election to be called within the next few weeks to break the impasse

-19%

Edited September 14, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Wilber]

I've never heard Harper or any con tell the truth. They were willfully misleading Canadians as to the nature of the coalition, lying and fearmongering, the only two things a conservative is good at.

Actually a majority of Canadians wanted someone other than Harper. A majority of people voted for parties that would have voted with the liberals in the coalition. They would have had the confidence of the house, and should have been given the chance to govern. If anyone pulled a coup d'etat and acted undemocratically it was Harper when he ran away like a cowardly bitch and prorogued parliament rather than face a confidence vote. Harper is the one who subverted our democracy, not the coalition.

Coalitions are formed when the party with the more seats than any other can't keep the confidence of the house. They happen when a majority of elected members find the ruling party's agenda impossible to support. Those elected members can find enough common ground to keep government working.

PS when i say Harper acted like a cowardly bitch, i mean he acted like a scared female dog.

Yes but more Canadians wanted Harper than anyone else. If Harper couldn't claim a majority of Canadians wanted him, the other two could claim it even less. In this respect I think bambino has it right, the PM should be chosen by Parliament, by people who were elected. In this case the MP chosen might not even be a party leader. This would give coalitions more credibility IMO. An example of this happened in Britain in 1915. When the Conservatives joined the Liberals in a coalition they refused to serve under the existing Liberal PM, Asquith but were willing to serve under Lloyd George, another Liberal, so that is what happened. Parliament picked the PM, one of their best.

[g_bambino]

So Harper is clearly lying, and misleading all those innocent Canadians who can't think for themselves. No free thinking Canadian did not want the Coalition to succeed.

Those are two mutually exclusive matters. One could not desire a coalition government without having to resort to lies to justify that dislike. Harper is the prime minister of Canada, the main advisor to the monarch and her viceroy on the exercise of all royal power, and he can't even get the most basic tenets of our parliamentary system right? Please. It was shameful, and embarrassing; the other party leaders were embarrassing, too, but at least they didn't resort to bald-faced lies to the populace about the mechanics of the Canadian constitution.

[Wilber]

Deleted

Edited September 14, 2009 by Wilber

[Goat Boy©]

Those are two mutually exclusive matters. One could not desire a coalition government without having to resort to lies to justify that dislike. Harper is the prime minister of Canada, the main advisor to the monarch and her viceroy on the exercise of all royal power, and he can't even get the most basic tenets of our parliamentary system right? Please. It was shameful, and embarrassing; the other party leaders were embarrassing, too, but at least they didn't resort to bald-faced lies to the populace about the mechanics of the Canadian constitution.

I agree, but shameful of all. Harper alone, is not guilty. And the coalition was certainly not a popular alternative.

The disposing of Stephane Dion is evidence enough of this to those who choose to disregard the rest.

[Molly]

Not so fast there, Goat boy.

Harper is guilty of precipitating the whole affair, and then ALSO of, as Bambino says, of resorting to bald-faced lies about the mechanics of the Canadian consititution... and I'd add, and also of further playing the politics of division with the sole intention of saving his own political arse.

The three unhappy options did not come into play, and would not have, until Harper, alone, committed the first of those three great sins.

To tar all equally is like saying that the arsonist is no more guilty than the guys running in circles trying to figure out how put he fire out with no equipment. It doesn't wash.

[Molly]

(purple prose)

..... he rolled the dice in the mistaken assumption that they were sufficiently weighted...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

(purple prose)

..... he rolled the dice in the mistaken assumption that they were sufficiently weighted...

Make my words folks, Harper will be called out on this.

[Dave_ON]

Final update to this, the case was dismissed by the federal court which comes as no surprise.

Followup Article.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/17/...watch-case.html

As expected the constitution was cited as the reason for dismisal although not in the way I expected.

Among the reasons Judge Michel M.J. Shore cited for dismissing the case was that it was outside the court's jurisdiction.

"The matter of convention in this set of circumstances is political in nature and is outside the jurisdiction of the court, bearing in mind the separation of powers under constitutional supremacy," he wrote.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Dave_ON

[g_bambino]

As expected the constitution was cited as the reason for dismisal although not in the way I expected.

I had to read the decision a couple of times, but I think the jist of it is as some of us expected: the election call was a matter of the Crown acting in Council, which the law in question does not bind. Ergo, the ministers who tendered the advice are the ones responsible for the action, which, according to responsible government, puts the consequences into the political realm; ie. parliament.