Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[ToadBrother]

I think we need to be careful before coming to the conclusion that Harper's yet done anything unconstitutional. If we do, we'll therefore imply that the Governor General hasn't done her ultimate job, which is to prevent such things; of all the players in the latest parliamentary circus acts, Michaelle Jean's been the most commendable. I think you're trying to say that if Harper continues, once parliament has reconvened, to ignore its will, then he'll be treading ever closer into dangerous, unconstitutional areas; but it could be read another way, and there are certainly those here who would like to do so.

The 2009 prorogation, even the 2008 prorogation, neither of them are strictly unconstitutional (though I still assert the 2008 prorogation violates the spirit of our constitution, in that Parliament's role is to hold the government to account, and the government only stands at the pleasure of Parliament). I'm referring to the documents pertaining to Afghani prisoner transfers. Parliament has the absolute right to request and receive any and all documents at its pleasure. Denying a Parliamentary committee those documents is very much a violation of our constitution.

[myata]

You seem decidedly unwilling to actually discuss the points I raise, probably because you're too lazy to read them, so you go off on these mindless tangents which don't really have much to do with what I say at all.

...

How about you just read what I write, try to keep my words in the context in which they're written, and go from there?

Indeed, I see that there's fewer and fewer of meaningful points to discuss. I think we have established and agreed that the current system through whatever historical convolutions which can be left outside of this discussion, formally affords the executive power significant powers and privileges that would be hard to impossible to justify from the position of modern, responsible democracy (i.e balance of power, closely defined constitutional process and checks and balances to prevent abuses by any one branch).

We also established that the only checks on that disproportionally unbalanced executive power is an unlikely intervention by unelected appointee of the same government they're supposed to keep in check, or popular will via election. Understanding that most electorates this included are averse to frequent elections, this leaves that same unelected appointee as the only meaningful check on the work of the government for extended periods of time.

We have found out that other than a few obscure Caribbean democracies like Jamaica, almost every other functional (as opposed to fictional or token) democracy has moved on to a more sophisticated form of political system, with better defined political roles, processes and division of powers.

And finally, we also established that as it exists now, the system is almost impossible to modify.

At this point, assuming that the analysis is correct as you would admit it, I rest my case. There's no point in arguing whether its the best, very good, working or sucking system as it depends on the viewers' framework of reference. We can keep it and enjoy the warm attachement to the ages past. Or we can move forward and fix what doesn't make sense in this age anymore. In the array of evolutionary choices each one has a merit, and a definite result. In a few generations we may very well find out what our disinterest, fear of change and attachement to the dusty old ways and traditions has in store for us.

[jbg]

Clearly the PM (and all party leaders, really) hold far too much power, the solution is simple, and that's for MPs to recognize that first and foremost they are parliamentarians, and secondly that they belong to a party.

Good luck getting your nominating papers signed next time around.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Good luck getting your nominating papers signed next time around.

Run as an independent.

[g_bambino]

Indeed, I see that there's fewer and fewer of meaningful points to discuss. I think we have established and agreed that the current system through whatever historical convolutions which can be left outside of this discussion, formally affords the executive power significant powers and privileges that would be hard to impossible to justify from the position of modern, responsible democracy (i.e balance of power, closely defined constitutional process and checks and balances to prevent abuses by any one branch).

There's a difference between not having many meaningful points to discuss and your personal denial of meaning to the points your opponents have put forward to discuss; I wonder how you came to consider yourself both participant and referee. Canada already has a modern (it functions in the present), responsible (the government answers to the elected representatives of the voting populace) democracy (all citizens are equal before the law, have equal access to power, and have secured rights and freedoms). You haven't proven we don't because you said we don't.

Canada's Parliament, as conceived by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867, continues to be a vibrant example of democracy in action. In Parliament, our representatives examine the top issues of the day, decide on policies and laws, and hold the government accountable for its actions.

The Parliament of Canada Democracy in Action

[c/e & +]

Edited February 10, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Good luck getting your nominating papers signed next time around.

Which is exactly why we need to return to the original way of selecting party leaders: chosen by the party caucus.

[ToadBrother]

Good luck getting your nominating papers signed next time around.

Chuck Cadman showed that if you are held in esteem by your constituents, the approval of Party apparatchik ain't much of a coin at all. If the only way you feel you can get elected is if a picture with the party leader shaking your hand hangs on the wall, then somewhere along the way, you missed the bus.

Edited February 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Indeed, I see that there's fewer and fewer of meaningful points to discuss. I think we have established and agreed that the current system through whatever historical convolutions which can be left outside of this discussion, formally affords the executive power significant powers and privileges that would be hard to impossible to justify from the position of modern, responsible democracy (i.e balance of power, closely defined constitutional process and checks and balances to prevent abuses by any one branch).

I have already pointed out endlessly how we have these things. Now you're trying to make it sound as if I agree with you. Please don't try to frame my position. You seem inadequate as it is trying to frame your own.

We also established that the only checks on that disproportionally unbalanced executive power is an unlikely intervention by unelected appointee of the same government they're supposed to keep in check, or popular will via election. Understanding that most electorates this included are averse to frequent elections, this leaves that same unelected appointee as the only meaningful check on the work of the government for extended periods of time.

I've already detailed the important check, the confidence of the House. If the government loses confidence, then regardless of the GG's decision (and there are only two; asking someone else to form a new government or dissolution), the government is gone. Few other democracies save those of the Westminster model can boast that. If the US president begins behaving like a lunatic, you can't get rid of him until the end of his term. I'd say our system affords a much more stunning and immediate solution to a disastrous government.

We have found out that other than a few obscure Caribbean democracies like Jamaica, almost every other functional (as opposed to fictional or token) democracy has moved on to a more sophisticated form of political system, with better defined political roles, processes and division of powers.

Jamaica is obscure? But in actuality most countries whose governments began in the Westminster tradition, like India or Ireland, have similar institutions, even if the British Monarch has been replaced by an elected president. These two countries have in most aspects maintained a relatively weak executive who, like the Queen, acts only on the advice of Cabinet. All without any sort of system of privileges. If our system is good enough for the world's largest democracy, it can't be all that bad.

And finally, we also established that as it exists now, the system is almost impossible to modify.

And the reason has nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with regionalism. It goes back to my key observation; you want the changes you want made to be as easy as pie. You don't give a crap about democracy at all, because if you did, you would respect the fact that this country presently does not want the massive reforms that you posit.

To my mind, the most key aspect of a modern, true democracy, is that those who lose a vote respect the will of the majority. Why do you have such a hard time respecting the will of the majority?

At this point, assuming that the analysis is correct as you would admit it, I rest my case.

Reframing your argument in almost exact phrasing you used before, but claiming that I agree with it hardly gets you to the point where you can rest your case.

There's no point in arguing whether its the best, very good, working or sucking system as it depends on the viewers' framework of reference. We can keep it and enjoy the warm attachement to the ages past. Or we can move forward and fix what doesn't make sense in this age anymore. In the array of evolutionary choices each one has a merit, and a definite result. In a few generations we may very well find out what our disinterest, fear of change and attachement to the dusty old ways and traditions has in store for us.

The problem is that you seem to have little enough understanding of the present institutions, of how democracies work elsewhere, and most sadly, a tragic lack of curiosity. You, to my mind, are the most profoundly unaware person of the science of politics I have ever met, and yet the most keen to spout catchphrases of little meaning.

Edited February 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DrGreenthumb]

Hey Toad, do the opposition parties have to introduce a new motion for the government to turn over the unredacted documents? Or does the order still stand that the Harper government must produce the documents demanded by Parliament?

[ToadBrother]

Hey Toad, do the opposition parties have to introduce a new motion for the government to turn over the unredacted documents? Or does the order still stand that the Harper government must produce the documents demanded by Parliament?

I'm not sure about that motion, as it is not a bill, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd wager the Opposition would have to introduce a new motion.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm not sure about that motion, as it is not a bill, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd wager the Opposition would have to introduce a new motion.

Do you still think the Afghan inquiry was just a fishing expedition? If it was I think they must have had a pretty big Conservative fish on the line for harper to shut down Parliament rather than turn over the documents.

Do you now think that the Conservatives knew that something pretty damaging to them would be found if the inquiry continued?

I think they wouldn't have gambled on the prorogation if Harper wasn't pretty sure that it was the least damaging option.

[g_bambino]

Do you now think that the Conservatives knew that something pretty damaging to them would be found if the inquiry continued?

The question presumes that the inquiry won't continue.

[DrGreenthumb]

The question presumes that the inquiry won't continue.

The Conservatives have had plenty of time to shred paper and still have until March.

[jbg]

Do you still think the Afghan inquiry was just a fishing expedition? If it was I think they must have had a pretty big Conservative fish on the line for harper to shut down Parliament rather than turn over the documents.

Even though in theory a PM sits in Parliament as a practical matter they have responsibility for national security. It's hard to prevent a Committee from abusing unredacted documents.

[g_bambino]

The Conservatives have had plenty of time to shred paper and still have until March.

They have. Doesn't mean they did. However, it would be self-inciminating, as they had the papers in December. This would cue the opposition to find Harper in contempt of parliament and censured, as far as expulsion from the legislature and/or imprisonment.

[g_bambino]

Even though in theory a PM sits in Parliament as a practical matter they have responsibility for national security.

True. But, the Prime Minister is also responsible to the House of Commons for his actions, even those regarding national security. MPs ability to do so is hindered by the Prime Minister keeping secrets from them.

[ToadBrother]

Do you still think the Afghan inquiry was just a fishing expedition? If it was I think they must have had a pretty big Conservative fish on the line for harper to shut down Parliament rather than turn over the documents.

Do you now think that the Conservatives knew that something pretty damaging to them would be found if the inquiry continued?

I think they wouldn't have gambled on the prorogation if Harper wasn't pretty sure that it was the least damaging option.

I think it was done for a number of reasons, not just over the prisoner transfer issue. A big part of it may have been to try to salvage MacKay, who looked very much to be going down the tubes.

[myata]

But in actuality most countries whose governments began in the Westminster tradition, like India or Ireland, have similar institutions, even if the British Monarch has been replaced by an elected president.

Wait, let me confirm that I heard it right: replacing birthright King or unelected appointee with a figure elected by full popular vote is a "similar" system? OMG. If that would be the level of our discussion, then indeed I can't see what more is there left to discuss, because birthright King is now democratic President, Monarchy is Democracy, Lack of any meanigful checks or balances is Vibrant and Triumphant Democracy, being muzzled, kicked and shut at will means Supremacy of the Parliament, and so on as per that glancy shiny book you and Bambino were reading since Jr K and that safely replaced for you the stark reality you could see right out your very window and that even came close to knocking you on your head, but it'll take more, much more some serious crisis or calamity to just notice the obvious and start moving our ar.. to make even minor meaningful change.

[g_bambino]

Wait, let me confirm that I heard it right: replacing birthright King or unelected appointee with a figure elected by full popular vote is a "similar" system?

Yes.

irthright King is now democratic President, Monarchy is Democracy, Lack of any meanigful checks or balances is Vibrant and Triumphant Democracy, being muzzled, kicked and shut at will means Supremacy of the Parliament, and so on as per that glancy shiny book you and Bambino were reading since Jr K and that safely replaced for you the stark reality you could see right out your very window and that even came close to knocking you on your head, but it'll take more, much more some serious crisis or calamity to just notice the obvious and start moving our ar.. to make even minor meaningful change.

What a wonderful illustration of your penchant for giving ignorant drivel false importance by couching it in hyperbole, juvenile mockery, and an inflated sense of self. It's blatantly clear you don't care one bit for democracy, save for hijacking merely the word for use as a palatable attraction to your otherwise gruel-thin opinions, devoid, as they are, by your own recipe, of the meat of fact. Amateur vandal.

[PIK]

Do you still think the Afghan inquiry was just a fishing expedition? If it was I think they must have had a pretty big Conservative fish on the line for harper to shut down Parliament rather than turn over the documents.

Do you now think that the Conservatives knew that something pretty damaging to them would be found if the inquiry continued?

I think they wouldn't have gambled on the prorogation if Harper wasn't pretty sure that it was the least damaging option.

It is the irresponsible left whose actions could mean serious trouble for our soldiers, and just to score polictal points. I think harper took one for the troops.

[ToadBrother]

It is the irresponsible left whose actions could mean serious trouble for our soldiers, and just to score polictal points.

Which may all be true, but Parliament still outweighs a PM. We either have a constitution which frames the extent of the PM's powers and Parliament's powers, or not.

I think harper took one for the troops.

He didn't take one for the troops. He took one so MacKay wouldn't fall.

[ToadBrother]

Wait, let me confirm that I heard it right: replacing birthright King or unelected appointee with a figure elected by full popular vote is a "similar" system?

India's President is elected by its lower house of Parliament (I wouldn't mind using that method to recommend a GG to the Queen, btw). Ireland's is by popular vote. In either case, most of the reserve powers and constraints on those powers are identical. If we used India or Ireland's system of selecting a head of state, and Harper decided to do what he did in 2008 and 2009, we'd still be in the same place.

Like I said, you know absolutely nothing about any political system.

OMG. If that would be the level of our discussion, then indeed I can't see what more is there left to discuss, because birthright King is now democratic President, Monarchy is Democracy, Lack of any meanigful checks or balances is Vibrant and Triumphant Democracy, being muzzled, kicked and shut at will means Supremacy of the Parliament, and so on as per that glancy shiny book you and Bambino were reading since Jr K and that safely replaced for you the stark reality you could see right out your very window and that even came close to knocking you on your head, but it'll take more, much more some serious crisis or calamity to just notice the obvious and start moving our ar.. to make even minor meaningful change.

I've given my reasons for why I don't think a change is worth it. If, at some point in the future, such constitutional changes wouldn't threaten national unity, then I'd consider it, though I'd have to have some clear benefits shown to me beyond some sort of ideological dislike of monarchy. If it's just going to be transforming the GG into an elected president with identical powers, then nothing of substance has been fixed.

Edited February 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

Like I said, you know absolutely nothing about any political system.

And he purposefully doesn't want to.

[ToadBrother]

And he purposefully doesn't want to.

Which makes me curious why he feels compelled to worry about our political system at all. If you have no interest in our system, beyond some vague feeling that it's all wrong, and you virtually no knowledge of any other political system out there, how is it possible to make a rational critique.

[PIK]

Which may all be true, but Parliament still outweighs a PM. We either have a constitution which frames the extent of the PM's powers and Parliament's powers, or not.

He didn't take one for the troops. He took one so MacKay wouldn't fall.

Explain that one to me, what has mackay doen that warrants the PM protection, any military man I have spoken to, has no problem with mackay. Any body could be better then any liberal defence minister, they don't call it the decade of darkenss for nothing.