Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[Argus]

Perhaps they will comment that the term limits law is frivolous as well.

The term limits law was well-meaning, but it should have included a rider of some kind which pointed out it was unworkable in a minority parliament.

[jdobbin]

The term limits law was well-meaning, but it should have included a rider of some kind which pointed out it was unworkable in a minority parliament.

It is unworkable at any time since the prime minister can make up any reason even in a majority to argue for an election.

[Smallc]

There is NO way that this expensive scheme could have continued without protection from the PMO. Senior civil servants testified as such.

This has nothing to do with loyalty. There was and is no proof beyond a couple of key players. It's that simple. I give Mr. Mulroney the same benefit of the doubt.

[Smallc]

The term limits law was well-meaning, but it should have included a rider of some kind which pointed out it was unworkable in a minority parliament.

Except it should have applied to the situation. There was no vote of confidence. There was a Prime Minister who again broke his principles and the spirit of his law because he thought he could get a majority. If the law had any meaning at all, he never should have had that ability.

[Argus]

This has nothing to do with loyalty. There was and is no proof beyond a couple of key players. It's that simple. I give Mr. Mulroney the same benefit of the doubt.

That's because you don't know anything about how government works, much less how the public service works.

I am telling you that a single director could not have gotten away with this, even with his minister's backing (and again you ignore Gagliano). I am telling you that his deputy minister, when faced with intransigance from Gagliano, went to the top public servant in the country with complaints, and so testified. It could only have been the PMO protecting this scheme which allowed it to continue.

[DrGreenthumb]

That's because you don't know anything about how government works, much less how the public service works.

I am telling you that a single director could not have gotten away with this, even with his minister's backing (and again you ignore Gagliano). I am telling you that his deputy minister, when faced with intransigance from Gagliano, went to the top public servant in the country with complaints, and so testified. It could only have been the PMO protecting this scheme which allowed it to continue.

This thread is about the CONSERVATIVES breaking the law when Harper broke his own fixed election date law in order to call a snap election that he thought would benefit him. Exactly what this law was intended to prevent from happening. This was a 350 million dollar crime and you conservative supporters just want everyone to look the other way? I thought you claimed to be law and order types, tough on crime and all that nonsense...

If your logic is that its too late to do anything about it now anyways then I guess we shouldn't prosecute murderers or pedophiles for their past crimes either?

I feel perfectly justified in comparing Harper's crime to pedophelia when conservatives jump at the chance to cry, "If we legalize pot, why not just legalize murder and pedophelia?" "That would cut the crime rate too", every chance they get.

[g_bambino]

This thread is about the CONSERVATIVES breaking the law when Harper broke his own fixed election date law in order to call a snap election that he thought would benefit him.

Then the thread is pointless, as Harper broke no law.

[madmax]

The term limits law was well-meaning, but it should have included a rider of some kind which pointed out it was unworkable in a minority parliament.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Its called a confidence vote and that is the measure.

100% cooperation from the LPC was the lame excuse Harper gave for pulling the plug. 100% cooperation wasn't good enough for him, and he pulled the plug on himself.

[Wilber]

The term limits law was well-meaning, but it should have included a rider of some kind which pointed out it was unworkable in a minority parliament.

It wasn't well thought out. A fixed date must be binding on all sides. It can't work if it only applies to one. That said, there was no good reason to call that election just as there is no good reason to call another. The people made that clear when they maintained the status quo in an election less than a year ago. Too bad the party hacks refuse to listen.

[Smallc]

If there is a vote of non confidence, that is all the reason that is needed for this election. The law is pointless. Fixed terms are impossible in a minority, and making them binding would be a terrible idea.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

If there is a vote of non confidence, that is all the reason that is needed for this election. The law is pointless. Fixed terms are impossible in a minority, and making them binding would be a terrible idea.

Of course they are possible. If they were binding the parities would have no choice but come to an agreement on issues, because they couldn't use an election or the threat of one as an out. Our present system abuses the public and its wallet because it doesn't force our representatives to reach compromise.

[Wilber]

If there is a vote of non confidence, that is all the reason that is needed for this election. The law is pointless. Fixed terms are impossible in a minority, and making them binding would be a terrible idea.

A vote of non confidence is not a reason for an election, it is means of forcing one.

[Smallc]

Of course they are possible. If they were binding the parities would have no choice but come to an agreement on issues, because they couldn't use an election or the threat of one as an out.

We should ask Israel how that worked out when they had a fixed term for their Prime Minister. It didn't do well. You've made it clear before that you don't approve of our system, but in reality it works just fine. The government is forced to keep the confidence of the people's representatives, and right now it appears that they don't have it.

[Smallc]

A vote of non confidence is not a reason for an election, it is means of forcing one.

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.

[fellowtraveller]

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.

That may be the single most pathetic post ever made on this forum.

The $1 million paid back by the Lioberals was entirely and wholly their accounting.

Of course the Liberals were not involved.....if you subscribe to the Rogue Bureaucrat Theory: Chuck Guite, rogue bureaucrat, one day discovered that he had control of a few hundred million dollars with no oversight and no direction from anybody on what to do with it. Acting alone and on a whim, he picked up the Montreal Yelow Pages and randomly sent huge checks to ad agencies. Imagine his surprise when he discovered every recipient was a Liberal supporter!

[Wilber]

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 is only a reason in the minds of those forcing an election. They are there to do what the people want. If there were binding dates, there would be no choice but to reach compromise because the country couldn't be governed without it. Our present system makes acting like adults unnecessary. That's why I say to all of them. SMARTEN UP.

[fellowtraveller]

A vote of non confidence is not a reason for an election, it is means of forcing one.

That is correct, it is the mechanism by which the election may be forced. It is not a reason as such, the reason is nominally found in whatever bill was involved in the vote.

[Smallc]

If there were binding dates, there would be no choice but to reach compromise because the country couldn't be governed without it.

Often then, the country stops being governed. It happened in Israel when they tried to have fixed terms. It simply doesn't work in a parliamentary system.

[noahbody]

Of course the Liberals were not involved.....if you subscribe to the Rogue Bureaucrat Theory: Chuck Guite, rogue bureaucrat, one day discovered that he had control of a few hundred million dollars with no oversight and no direction from anybody on what to do with it. Acting alone and on a whim, he picked up the Montreal Yelow Pages and randomly sent huge checks to ad agencies. Imagine his surprise when he discovered every recipient was a Liberal supporter!

And he told Gabby, "Just don't tell your brother."

[Wilber]

Often then, the country stops being governed. It happened in Israel when they tried to have fixed terms. It simply doesn't work in a parliamentary system.

Then we will hold them responsible at the next election. Instead of a bunch of kids yelling at each other and threatening elections, I would prefer a system that says, no boys and girls, you can't have an election, sort it out.

[Smallc]

Well, technically speaking, we don't need an election, of course Canadians don't seem to want that alternative either. In reality though, this is the system that we have, and it's served us well for nearly a century and a half. A complaint here or there isn't to be unexpected, but it doesn't change that it's a good system.

[Molly]

Ha!!!

So... the reason Harper is completely innocent of breaking any law in calling that election is because the Conservatives are incompetent legislators!

Feel free to use that defense at every turn!

[capricorn]

Some posters who insist the Conservatives broke their own election law also think there would be nothing wrong with overturning election results and replacing the elected government with a coalition of the losers. The common denominator is that their guy did not win. You lose an election, suck it up and work for your losing party to do better next time.

[Keepitsimple]

Some posters who insist the Conservatives broke their own election law also think there would be nothing wrong with overturning election results and replacing the elected government with a coalition of the losers. The common denominator is that their guy did not win. You lose an election, suck it up and work for your losing party to do better next time.

It's too bad we couldn't just wiggle our noses and put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine if the Liberals held 143 seats and the Conservatives, with 77 seats, joined with the NDP and Bloc as a coalition to oust the Liberals from power. Do you think these coalion supporters would be singing the same tune? Somehow I don't think so. But you know, I don't even think they have the capacity to understand how partisan their argument is. It's just another example of the self absorbed, self-righteous Left - unable to see any viewpoint except their own.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Wilber]

Well, technically speaking, we don't need an election, of course Canadians don't seem to want that alternative either. In reality though, this is the system that we have, and it's served us well for nearly a century and a half. A complaint here or there isn't to be unexpected, but it doesn't change that it's a good system.

How is it serving us well, with four federal elections in five years? We are making Italy look good. The US manages to do it with three levels of government and almost no party discipline. It should be simple for us so why not? Too afraid of independent thinking from our elected representatives? Too lazy? Iron party discipline that prevents anyone from questioning the master's orders? What is it?

I for one am getting awfully weary of my elected representative being totally subservient to some party leader who's name didn't appear on my ballot and was elected by someone else, somewhere else. But that is the system I am stuck with. Considering the declining percentage of people who actually vote, I don't think I am the only one.