Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[nicky10013]

Like I said, it's utterly irrelevant to me. The question is bigger than who is the government today or tomorrow or next year or whenever. The issue is that Parliamentarians have allowed themselves to become, at the best of times, voting machines, and at worst utterly irrelevant. As I keep repeating, and will keep repeating until I'm blue in the face, it's not the Prime Minister that's supposed to be supreme, it's not the Governor General, it's not the Cabinet, it is the entire body, and that entire body has lost all nerve, and willingly let's itself be little more than the pony in the party dog-and-pony show.

Oh I agree, but delicate politics are involved. You rush into anything and screw this up, this guy is going to have his hands on power a lot longer than anyone wants.

[ToadBrother]

Oh I agree, but delicate politics are involved. You rush into anything and screw this up, this guy is going to have his hands on power a lot longer than anyone wants.

You go into something like this knowing that you're probably going to fail. In fact, it's pretty decent odds that the Governor General isn't going to even answer the door. But the point is that you make the effort, you create the symbol. The Tories would, of course, call it pointless symbolism, but if the polls do reflect the opinions of most Canadians, then it won't be pointless, and I think you can justify at that point bringing down the Government.

[DrGreenthumb]

I think that the people that really really like power, are probably the ones who shouldn't have it. Harper seems to crave power excessively.

[jbg]

I still haven't seen a reason WHY this has happened. Please, answer that for me.

Why did Chretien prorogue three times?

[Wild Bill]

No, he was a Progressive Conservative and there's a difference.

I've been watching Joe for his entire career. In thought, word and deed he has been a liberal. He may have worn a PC jersey but so what? Do you define a man simply by what costume he wears?

When a Red Tory comes to the limit of Red he's a Liberal.

[Wild Bill]

I could see Harper gone.

Then what, Jerry? I would actually love to see this coalition thing come to pass!

I've said many times that I don't believe that Canadians would be happy about such a thing, in a group greater than that which voted for Harper. Polls last time overwhelmingly supported this view.

You and others just won't let it go! Ignatieff did. Not surprisingly, considering he's the guy who if it backfired would take the blame.

If it came to pass then the idea would be tested! You seem to think that either Canadians wouldn't care or that they would be so impressed at how the coalition governed that not only would they forgive them for over-ruling a traditional choice of a minority government by taking power, they would reward them by voting against Harper (and presumably for Ignatieff!) NEXT election!

In other words, taking over with a coalition would be a freebie! Most Canadians would meekly accept being told that the whole thing was completely legal and although no Canadian had ever seen it before in his lifetime nobody would get upset.

There would be no downside!

I'm a techie by trade. Let's test your premise!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Then what, Jerry? I would actually love to see this coalition thing come to pass!

I've said many times that I don't believe that Canadians would be happy about such a thing, in a group greater than that which voted for Harper. Polls last time overwhelmingly supported this view.

You and others just won't let it go! Ignatieff did. Not surprisingly, considering he's the guy who if it backfired would take the blame.

If it came to pass then the idea would be tested! You seem to think that either Canadians wouldn't care or that they would be so impressed at how the coalition governed that not only would they forgive them for over-ruling a traditional choice of a minority government by taking power, they would reward them by voting against Harper (and presumably for Ignatieff!) NEXT election!

In other words, taking over with a coalition would be a freebie! Most Canadians would meekly accept being told that the whole thing was completely legal and although no Canadian had ever seen it before in his lifetime nobody would get upset.

There would be no downside!

I'm a techie by trade. Let's test your premise!

Lets! I really don't like Iggy either, but he has a little pet Trudeau hiding in the wings. Thats the guy I want on the TV, it will scare the hell out of Albertans!

[Smallc]

Why did Chretien prorogue three times?

I would imagine that his legislative agenda was over.

[ironstone]

For the most part highly educated folks are more socially adept than those with less education. Granted that is a two edged sword, however in my experience business gravitates toward less social aspects and more economic aspects of life within this society. Society needs a balance between the two and over the last couple of decades we have leaned toward a more pro-business and less socially beneficial slate of initiatives. The pendulum will swing once again and the opposite will be true. I think that is because there is an extreme tendency in this nation toward partisan affiliation.

In my experience, from having worked as both a union and a management position, neither side holds all the answers. They represent the reality of politics, and what we need is something more down the middle. The realization of economic importance must be balanced with environmental sustainable initiatives and technological advancements that would accommodate the varied spectrum of employees and human oriented production.

For the most part,"highly educated people" pretty much run the whole show the world over.They ran Enron,Adscam,Ontario Lottery Corporation,E-Health,the Liberal gun registry,you name it.

Why,oh why,are these "highly educated people" failing to foresee obvious problems withing their sphere?Is it perhaps because these days the highly educated start at the top right after university indoctrination,and therefore fail to gain experience from actually having to work their way up the ladder?This criticism can be fairly applied to both left and right wing intellectuals.

We stand at a crossroads of development.

[g_bambino]

Part of the problem is the party system, which stands between that sacred trust between an MP and his constituents...

It would seem that we're not the only ones with this view.

[Smallc]

I fully agree with that assessment. Perhaps prime ministers should be chosen the way the Speaker is?

[eyeball]

Perhaps prime ministers should be chosen the way the Speaker is?

Anything will do...as far as I'm concerned any kind of change at this point is better than no change at all. Try something new every couple of years - if we don't like it change it again.

Continuing to do NOTHING will, perhaps already has...drive me into complete total political apathy and disengagement.

I notice other long term political junkies like myself divesting themselves of their involvement in our local processes. Resigned futility really seems to be settling in around my region. Its pretty sad. I don't think I've seen a single public face at our public meetings for at least two years now.

Maybe a little break...or a perogy or two would be nice.

[jbg]

Frankly I don't think that Layton or Ignatieff have it in them to be machiavellian, but in the end is that really such a bad thing?

Could you see Chretien being Machiavellian?

[jbg]

The issue is that Parliamentarians have allowed themselves to become, at the best of times, voting machines, and at worst utterly irrelevant. As I keep repeating, and will keep repeating until I'm blue in the face, it's not the Prime Minister that's supposed to be supreme, it's not the Governor General, it's not the Cabinet, it is the entire body, and that entire body has lost all nerve, and willingly let's itself be little more than the pony in the party dog-and-pony show.

I wasn't following your posts on February 4, 2006 (when indeed I was on a different Board from which I'm now banned). Somehow I doubt then you were praising Emerson (MP, Vancouver-Kingsway) for acting other than as a human voting machine, and crossing the aisle to ably serve as Commerce Minister. I'm sure you were in a lather about that.

[jbg]

...or a perogy or two would be nice.

Do you like yours with fried onions and sour cream?

[eyeball]

Do you like yours with fried onions and sour cream?

I sure do.

[JB Globe]

IF you apply those numbers to rest of the parties, their numbers are even less.

Obviously - my point was that we often forget how few people pay attention to politics on a regular basis IN GENERAL, and it's not exactly a shocker that there's a large chunk of people who aren't aware of a given issue, because they're not aware of much in general.

In both the ekos poll and the angus reid poll they did nothing to identify the non voters.

I think it's safe to assume that people who don't vote are generally less knowledgeable about specific, current political issues than people who do.

[ToadBrother]

I wasn't following your posts on February 4, 2006 (when indeed I was on a different Board from which I'm now banned). Somehow I doubt then you were praising Emerson (MP, Vancouver-Kingsway) for acting other than as a human voting machine, and crossing the aisle to ably serve as Commerce Minister. I'm sure you were in a lather about that.

Wasn't here either then. Crossing the floor, like John Nunziata did, that's backbone. Crossing the floor to get a cabinet position, well, not so much.

[ToadBrother]

Could you see Chretien being Machiavellian?

He was, frequently. He had Reform running around in circles for much of their time in Parliament. He humiliated them over pensions, and Manning in particular over Stornoway. As much as I liked Manning (despite some social conservative views), the Reform MPs were, by and large, the proverbial country mouse on the town mouse's turf. I mean, they got it in the end, but not before Paul Martin had done a rather brilliant maneuver in stealing their economic platform.

[jbg]

Wasn't here either then. Crossing the floor, like John Nunziata did, that's backbone. Crossing the floor to get a cabinet position, well, not so much.

Chuck Cadman did the same more recently.

But you still ducked the question. Was Emerson a "voting machine"?

[Alta4ever]

I think it's safe to assume that people who don't vote are generally less knowledgeable about specific, current political issues than people who do.

Until this thread, if polled i would have fallen under the not following category because i really didn`t care about this so called issue. But when i saw this thread i needed to dispel some false information.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Alta4ever

[ToadBrother]

Chuck Cadman did the same more recently.

But you still ducked the question. Was Emerson a "voting machine"?

For about ten minutes, no. During that period of time he was a rat looking for a ship that wasn't sinking. I'm not exactly sure how that's better than being a voting machine.

Edited January 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Until this thread, if polled i would have fallen under the not following category because i really didn`t care about this so called issue. But when i saw this thread i needed to dispel some false information.

Translation: I'm a partisan, and an attack on my boys needs a return volley, no thought required.

Still waiting for an earlier precedent for the 2008 prorogation.

[Alta4ever]

Translation: I'm a partisan, and an attack on my boys needs a return volley, no thought required.

Still waiting for an earlier precedent for the 2008 prorogation.

Their wasn`t precedent for what happened in 2008 but likely the decision that was made held the country together.

Nothing partisan about correcting the information being flung by the left on what prorogation is and how it effects our democratic rights.

[Smallc]

Nothing partisan about correcting the information being flung by the left on what prorogation is and how it effects our democratic rights.

Left wingers....like Andrew Coyne and 1/3 of the Conservative voting base.