Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[Wilber]

I'm saying no one would. If the Liberals said they were opening the Constitution even for this, I can imagine they would scream that it would break up the country. And they might be right considering the fight that would result.

So we are stuck in 1982 for etenity. Nice going Pierre.

[jdobbin]

It says that voting is more work in the US. I wonder if Canadians would be any better under those circumstances. On the other hand they might become more engaged if their vote had a direct result on government policy.

Given the low voter turn out, it seems more and more people are tired of having to do it every two years.

The opposition couldn't pass its budget either. Parliament would have to take responsibility for shutting down the country. Are you saying that the people in Parliament are irresponsible?

I'm sure they would blame each other. The people of the country would be held hostage for four years.

[jdobbin]

So we are stuck in 1982 for etenity. Nice going Pierre.

Ah, you can blame some premiers for it as well. Tory, NDP ones.

[Wilber]

Given the low voter turn out, it seems more and more people are tired of having to do it every two years.

I'm sure they would blame each other. The people of the country would be held hostage for four years.

So you are proposing another election after one year, the fourth in five years?

Held hostage to who, all those irresponsible parliamentarians?

[Wilber]

Ah, you can blame some premiers for it as well. Tory, NDP ones.

The premiers were responsible for some of the details. Trudeau was 100% responsible for the concept and his government passed the legislation.

[jdobbin]

The premiers were responsible for some of the details. Trudeau was 100% responsible for the concept and his government passed the legislation.

If you want to give him all the credit, fine.

I take it you don't believe in the amending formula that the provinces pushed.

[jdobbin]

So you are proposing another election after one year, the fourth in five years?

That's up to the other parties. Why is only one party in a minority responsible for an election?

Held hostage to who, all those irresponsible parliamentarians?

No checks and balances.

[Wilber]

That's up to the other parties. Why is only one party in a minority responsible for an election?

No checks and balances.

Cop out. Why would you vote non confidence if you don't want an election?

So the only check and balance we now have is the threat of an election, and then only in the case of a minority government. Non existent with a majority and terminally crude in the case of a minority.

[Wilber]

If you want to give him all the credit, fine.

I take it you don't believe in the amending formula that the provinces pushed.

Still got your bell bottoms and long hair?

No I don't but it was Trudeau who made it law.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't think you can know exactly where the polls are going until the House comes back.

You say backlash but the latest polls are mostly tied or within the margin. You think the Tories are breaking free to win a majority?

I don't see that happening - the math never seems to work out. I guess anything's possible but it would really surprise me. I'm wondering if they might be able to pick up a few more seats in Ontario as part of a McGuinty fatigue factor.....he's been having a bit of a rough go of it lately. Some people connect the Provincial and Federal brands and in some swing ridings, it might make a difference. I just don't see the Tories breaking into Fortress Toronto.....although you'd think by now those dummies would try and a get a bit more influence into the ruling government and elect a few MP's.

[Smallc]

Great, when are you writing the cheque for 300 mil?

Yes, because I like the system as is, I should have to pay for it. Seriously Wilber, you have a choice. There's a nice little country just to the south with the exact system that you prefer.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

I don't see that happening - the math never seems to work out. I guess anything's possible but it would really surprise me. I'm wondering if they might be able to pick up a few more seats in Ontario as part of a McGuinty fatigue factor.....he's been having a bit of a rough go of it lately. Some people connect the Provincial and Federal brands and in some swing ridings, it might make a difference. I just don't see the Tories breaking into Fortress Toronto.....although you'd think by now those dummies would try and a get a bit more influence into the ruling government and elect a few MP's.

At the moment, I see it tied. However, an election is not just a choice of the Liberals. Clearly there are three other parties who are uncompromising.

I believe if the Liberals support the government for another five months and get nothing for their troubles aside from a snap election in five months, they can't say they are doing the job they were elected to which is to oppose, amend and be ready to govern.

[jdobbin]

Cop out. Why would you vote non confidence if you don't want an election?

Would you shout coward and say all bills are going to be confidence motions if you didn't want an election?

So the only check and balance we now have is the threat of an election, and then only in the case of a minority government. Non existent with a majority and terminally crude in the case of a minority.

The check on a minority government is an election. The check on a majority opposition trying to push through its own legislation is an election.

The check on a majority is the fixed elections of every five years in the Constitution.

[Smallc]

I don't know what's so hard about all of this. The government has to keep the confidence if the house. They can't seem to do that, mostly because of their my way or the highway attitude. The only option for the opposition is a vote of non confidence if the government can't find some common ground. Then, the normal course is for the Prime Minister to ask for the dissoltion of Parliament. Assuming that's granted ( ), we end up in an election. It doesn't matter why it happens, that's the way that things work in a minority.

[jdobbin]

Still got your bell bottoms and long hair?

Still have your floods and a crewcut?

No I don't but it was Trudeau who made it law.

Your preference was amendments through the House of Lords?

[Wilber]

Would you shout coward and say all bills are going to be confidence motions if you didn't want an election?

The check on a minority government is an election. The check on a majority opposition trying to push through its own legislation is an election.

The check on a majority is the fixed elections of every five years in the Constitution.

I don't believe in confidence motions, nor do I believe in governments arbitrarily disolving Parliament. How many times do I have to say it.

Where are the checks on a majority?

[Smallc]

Where are the checks on a majority?

Term limits and Constitutional law....oh and the Senate...and in a terrible case the Governor General, though I think it would have to get bad before she would say anything.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Term limits and Constitutional law....oh and the Senate...and in a terrible case the Governor General, though I think it would have to get bad before she would say anything.

Gee, term limits, isn't that what I am advocating? The Senate can only delay and neither they or the GG are elected.

[jdobbin]

I don't believe in confidence motions, nor do I believe in governments arbitrarily disolving Parliament. How many times do I have to say it.

Then do something Constitutionally about it. You are talking about something that has existed way before Trudeau.

Where are the checks on a majority?

The Senate, the Courts, the fixed election date.

[Smallc]

Gee, term limits, isn't that what I am advocating?

We already have term limits. There must be an election at least every 5 years...they can be sooner, and that's your problem.

The Senate can only delay and neither they or the GG are elected.

And thank goodness for that. We have a non political check on our politicians.

[jdobbin]

Gee, term limits, isn't that what I am advocating? The Senate can only delay and neither they or the GG are elected.

The Senate can reject any law except a money bill.

[Wilber]

Still have your floods and a crewcut?

Your preference was amendments through the House of Lords?

What amendments? You keep maintaining they aren't possible because of the premiers and in that case the House of Lords would be preferable to nothing.

[Smallc]

the Courts,

Oh yeah, I forgot about them....of course they're not elected either.....

[Smallc]

The Senate can reject any law except a money bill.

I believe that the commons can override them after 180 days though, can't they? If that is true, it means that Harper didn't need to stack the Senate to get Senate reform....and he becomes even more of a hypocrite.

[Wilber]

The Senate can reject any law except a money bill.

An unelected house rejecting laws. Fits right in with your concept of supreme party leaders.