Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Argus]

Prorogation has never been used to evade the will of parliament like Harper uses it.

In fact, it has been used for that purpose many, many, many times. Chretien did it. Trudeau did it. Hell, MacKenzie King really did it during the constitutional crisis.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Bloody nonsense. First, they don't have the seats. Second, what you fail to understand, is that there are three groups in the centre of Canada who basically decide elections. Think of them as three slices of a pie. The left slice are the liberals, and the right slice are the tories. The middle slice are the ones who can go either way. Some lean left - liberalish, some lean right - small c conservativism. But they can all shift to either party depending on policies, programs and beliefs. The problem with a Liberal NDP coallition is it would inevitably alienate that middle slice, and it's bigger than the NDP. If that middle slides over to the Tories from a backlash at the leftist policies the Liberals would have to introduce to please the NDP the Liberals would be wiped in the next election and they'd be looking at a huge Tory majority.

I don't think so Argus. In numbers, your concept appears accurate. Yet you forget the Bloc, and their numbers as well as their current dislike of Harper and his government. Look at what the PC Premier of NFLD did to Harper last election with his Anything But Conservative (ABC) movement. It is not as if Harper is not vulnerable at all, yet he is skillful and it will require some talent and a lot of legwork to dislodge him. That middle slice you refer to is actually the biggest piece of the known pie, but even that is small compared to the largest demographic of all and that is the apathetic voter. An appeal to those folks will provide a win to ANY party in the nation.

[capricorn]

That middle slice you refer to is actually the biggest piece of the known pie, but even that is small compared to the largest demographic of all and that is the apathetic voter. An appeal to those folks will provide a win to ANY party in the nation.

Well it looks like Ignatieff will make an appeal for the youth vote to help him win and is making it a strategic priority.

"So we're going to universities. It's important to preach to the unconverted. Some of what I have to do is rally the base, raise money. But the stuff I enjoy the most is going into rooms that aren't full of Liberals – university crowds, university students are the future of Canadian politics and we have to get to them."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/740914--strangers-boost-michael-ignatieff-s-spirits

His first endeavor of 2010 is a cross country tour of campuses to win the support of the unconverted. Time will tell if he's on the right track.

That said, getting apathetic voters re-engaged in politics is a challenge and as you suggest, such an appeal could pay dividends to the party that manages to woo them.

[ironstone]

In fact, it has been used for that purpose many, many, many times. Chretien did it. Trudeau did it. Hell, MacKenzie King really did it during the constitutional crisis.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a response from Dr.Greenthumb on this one.Apparently proroguing parliament is not acceptable if Conservatives do it,but perfectly fine if the Libs do it.

[Keepitsimple]

Well it looks like Ignatieff will make an appeal for the youth vote to help him win and is making it a strategic priority.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/740914--strangers-boost-michael-ignatieff-s-spirits

His first endeavor of 2010 is a cross country tour of campuses to win the support of the unconverted. Time will tell if he's on the right track.

That said, getting apathetic voters re-engaged in politics is a challenge and as you suggest, such an appeal could pay dividends to the party that manages to woo them.

I rolled my eyes when I read that a while back. He's retreating to the only venue in which he's comfortable - a University. I think our kids are smart enough to understand the baggage that he's carting around.

[nicky10013]

Paul Martin did. You can check wikipedia.

You don't understand politics.

----

Harper has done nothing wrong. Compared to previous Prime Ministers (Trudeau, Pearson, Mulroney, King, Macdonald, Chretien), Harper is an American democrat.

[With that said, I tend to agree with Mulroney. The modern Canadian MSM (CBC et al) hates Conservatives.] Harper is a product of the Internet. It is amazing that people like Mulroney or Reagan or Mike Harris survived without the Internet.

This is an ongoing revolution.

Is that all you have to say? I don't understand politics? This coming from somone apparently so far to the right that every media outlet is anti-conservative is actually scary. There's no liberal media conspiracy. In fact, the only outlets that ARE liberal are the star and the CBC. CTV, Canwest Global, the National Post, the Globe and Mail, the Sun chain of papers are all Conservative whipping boys. So please, don't act as though the Conservatives are so noble that they win despite media not because of it. Pretty much every major newspaper except the Star endorsed Harper. The media isn't anti-harper, they're pro-scandal. Even the star was running front page stories on the Sponsorship Scandal.

Furthermore, making the claim that Harper has done nothing wrong clearly indicates the depth of your delusions. Essentially suspending parliament twice for partisan gain, I'm sorry, is doing something wrong. Bribing an MP with a million dollar life insurance policy isn't just wrong it's illegal. Attacking elections Canada is wrong. Suing the opposition is wrong. The man disdains our institutions. This man, who was literally elected for more open government and accountability is taking every step he can not to control the debate which all parties want, but to shut it down entirely.

[nicky10013]

I rolled my eyes when I read that a while back. He's retreating to the only venue in which he's comfortable - a University. I think our kids are smart enough to understand the baggage that he's carting around.

Speaking as someone who just graduated from U of T, I can tell you that university students will have an easier time seeing Harper for what he is. Generally, unless they're REALLY bad, students respect professors. Undergrad is a trying experience and for him to get as far as he did engrains respect despite his personal politics. A university is where people would welcome his credentials rather than mock them. I doubt too many people at a university would view being a Harvard professor as baggage rather than a stellar notch on an already excellent resume.

The growing level of anti-intellectualism in this country is sickening. Sure, anyone can elect a guy they'd like to have a beer with. The US did it. Look how it worked out for them.

Edited January 1, 2010 by nicky10013

[DrGreenthumb]

Don't hold your breath waiting for a response from Dr.Greenthumb on this one.Apparently proroguing parliament is not acceptable if Conservatives do it,but perfectly fine if the Libs do it.

It's not acceptable for anyone to do it, but Harper's use of it has been particularly abusive. To escape an impending confidence vote that he knew he was going to lose? That is a subversion of our democracy. Now using it to shut down an investigation into his government and to deny parliament the unredacted documents it already voted as a majority of the house that parliament should get. Another subversion of democracy. To get his senate majority in committee he could have prorogued right before parliament sat again. The only reason to do it now is to shut down the parliamentary investigation of the Conservative government's complicity in torture. Each MP will earn about 25,900 dollars while parliament is prorogued, or about 8 million dollars over the Harper imposed vacation from parliament.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Iggy may be on the right track. Harper has opened a door for him and even thrown down a gauntlet in challenge. Folks should be careful what they ask for.

[ironstone]

Speaking as someone who just graduated from U of T, I can tell you that university students will have an easier time seeing Harper for what he is. Generally, unless they're REALLY bad, students respect professors. Undergrad is a trying experience and for him to get as far as he did engrains respect despite his personal politics. A university is where people would welcome his credentials rather than mock them. I doubt too many people at a university would view being a Harvard professor as baggage rather than a stellar notch on an already excellent resume.

The growing level of anti-intellectualism in this country is sickening. Sure, anyone can elect a guy they'd like to have a beer with. The US did it. Look how it worked out for them.

Is it a fair to suggest that university intellectuals,more often than not,tend to be drawn rather sharply to the left for some reason?I think of examples of like a William Ayers in the U.S.,this is a thoroughly despicable man,one of the founders of a home grown terrorist group,and yet he is apparently held in very high esteem by left leaning students.I think of how often anyone who is percieved to be right wing is effectively banned from speaking at most univerities.

There is no anti-intellectualism backlash in this country to be honest.There is a very real threat to free speech however,and it comes mainly from the so called "intellectuals".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Is it a fair to suggest that university intellectuals,more often than not,tend to be drawn rather sharply to the left for some reason?I think of examples of like a William Ayers in the U.S.,this is a thoroughly despicable man,one of the founders of a home grown terrorist group,and yet he is apparently held in very high esteem by left leaning students.I think of how often anyone who is percieved to be right wing is effectively banned from speaking at most univerities.

There is no anti-intellectualism backlash in this country to be honest.There is a very real threat to free speech however,and it comes mainly from the so called "intellectuals".

Mostly hogwash.

The intellectuals are in favour of equality and mutual respect. The business folks are in favour of profit and all cost. The two are different sides of the same equation and to be brutally honest there is no damned balance at all. Politics defends both sides yet the profit motive touches everything. The little guy gets burned more often than not.

[nicky10013]

Is it a fair to suggest that university intellectuals,more often than not,tend to be drawn rather sharply to the left for some reason?I think of examples of like a William Ayers in the U.S.,this is a thoroughly despicable man,one of the founders of a home grown terrorist group,and yet he is apparently held in very high esteem by left leaning students.I think of how often anyone who is percieved to be right wing is effectively banned from speaking at most univerities.

There is no anti-intellectualism backlash in this country to be honest.There is a very real threat to free speech however,and it comes mainly from the so called "intellectuals".

A lot of my professors were conservative. I wasn't actually expecting it, but that's the way it was. Tell me, how often are right wing people banned from speaking. Who are these people? I went to see Senator Hugh Seagle speak. U of T brought in William Bolton last year. As far as I'm aware, the only person to be banned from speaking was that Galloway fellow from Great Britain from the far left because he couldn't get a visa. Bill Ayers from the States wasn't allowed to speak because he has a criminal record. Look at Columbia in New York. They let Akhmadinejad speak. Most universities don't ban people from speaking. The reason why is because A) it generates controversy and raises attendance if they bring in people whose views are considered radical. Most importantly in most university constitutions guarantees the right to free speech. It wouldn't be a university otherwise. Above all else, a university is about the free debate of ideas. True to its purpose, through tutorials, classes and work, that's what people do. As long as you can prove your argument, it's valid.

So please, tell me again how the loonie lefty intellectuals are stifling debate. The very notion that the broad stereotype that all intellectuals are somehow secret communist apparatchiks trying to destroy freedom of speech speaks to the streak of anti-intellectualism.

[g_bambino]

That is a subversion of our democracy.

Er, do you think parliament is never going to sit ever again?

[Smallc]

Our philosophy department at the University of Manitoba would regularly hold debates between opposing viewpoints on all subjects. The myth of what happens in universities mostly comes from people who aren't in universities.

[nicky10013]

Er, do you think parliament is never going to sit ever again?

No, that would mean the DESTRUCTION of democracy. Subversion isn't destruction.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No, that would mean the DESTRUCTION of democracy. Subversion isn't destruction.

The world has not ended, and Parliament will sit again. Our state of democracy has needed work for decades, maybe this will be a tipping point but I doubt it.

[Argus]

Mostly hogwash.

The intellectuals are in favour of equality and mutual respect. The business folks are in favour of profit and all cost. The two are different sides of the same equation and to be brutally honest there is no damned balance at all. Politics defends both sides yet the profit motive touches everything. The little guy gets burned more often than not.

This is a dreary cliche without much validity. To suggest that "intellectuals" however you chose to interpret the word, of the Left are only interested in equality and mutal respect is to suggest a startling lack of acquaintance with the breed. They, just like anyone else, are motivated by the need to succed. They just have different ideas about what constitutes success. As we've seen, they have no hesitation in backstabbing others who stand in their way, or doing their best to pummel those who disagree with their often arcane and unworkable life theories. They can be arrogant, entirely self absorbed, and as dishonest as the next man. What you call "business folk" are mostly people who believe in reality, and have little stomach for the ivory tower academic theories spouted by university types who have never gone out into the real world and whose incomptence is protected by tenure.

[Argus]

I rolled my eyes when I read that a while back. He's retreating to the only venue in which he's comfortable - a University. I think our kids are smart enough to understand the baggage that he's carting around.

Doesn't really matters as most of them don't vote anyway.

[Bryan]

Our philosophy department at the University of Manitoba would regularly hold debates between opposing viewpoints on all subjects. The myth of what happens in universities mostly comes from people who aren't in universities.

Depends on the University. When I went to University of Winnipeg, the only debating I ever saw was far left vs extreme far left.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This is a dreary cliche without much validity. To suggest that "intellectuals" however you chose to interpret the word, of the Left are only interested in equality and mutal respect is to suggest a startling lack of acquaintance with the breed. They, just like anyone else, are motivated by the need to succed. They just have different ideas about what constitutes success. As we've seen, they have no hesitation in backstabbing others who stand in their way, or doing their best to pummel those who disagree with their often arcane and unworkable life theories. They can be arrogant, entirely self absorbed, and as dishonest as the next man. What you call "business folk" are mostly people who believe in reality, and have little stomach for the ivory tower academic theories spouted by university types who have never gone out into the real world and whose incomptence is protected by tenure.

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.

We stand at a crossroads of development.

[Bryan]

Doesn't really matters as most of them don't vote anyway.

That's the funny part. He could easily drum up thousands of supporters who would be willing to be rent-a-protesters for rallies during class time, but it won't translate into one dollar of donations or a single vote.

[nicky10013]

The world has not ended, and Parliament will sit again. Our state of democracy has needed work for decades, maybe this will be a tipping point but I doubt it.

Nobody is claiming we're at a tipping point. No one said our system was perfect. We always have to be critiquing ourselves and our government in order to try and continue the tradition of open governance. Over the past 4 years we've been clearly and incontravertably moving away instead of towards open governance; subversion if you will.

What makes this all the more disheartening is that people relate more to the pocket book than to the institutions that allow us said pocketbook. People will be claiming the sponsorship scandal as reason to not vote for the liberals for years. Yet, though infinitely more disturbing, Harper won't lose any support due to the fact that the average voter may claim to love democracy but has no idea what democracy entails due to public schools failing to teach civics properly.

[nicky10013]

That's the funny part. He could easily drum up thousands of supporters who would be willing to be rent-a-protesters for rallies during class time, but it won't translate into one dollar of donations or a single vote.

Young Liberals are prevalent on a lot of major campuses. I can't say I've ever seen the same presence from Young Conservatives. Furthermore, a LOT of university students vote because they have better education. Most kids who don't go to university don't vote. Only about 30% attend university.

[Wild Bill]

So please, tell me again how the loonie lefty intellectuals are stifling debate. The very notion that the broad stereotype that all intellectuals are somehow secret communist apparatchiks trying to destroy freedom of speech speaks to the streak of anti-intellectualism.

Well, here's a link about Queens University:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111907.html

It talks about how they hired "thought police".

Here's another from YOUR university! Apparently there is some disagreement about such issues:

"April 1, 2008

To the Members of the University Community:

The University’s Department of Acceptable Truths has been asked to consider changes to university policies governing permitted free speech in the light of concerns that have been raised by faculty members, alumni, and wealthy funders."

Here's one that's particularly juicy about your Alma Mater:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/010761.html

"As the mob did not disperse, on the third floor, a worker in the Hillel decided that it was best to lock the door of the Hillel, and only let the Jewish students inside until the crowd thinned out, just to be on the safe side. Not thinking that anything was going to happen, the students in the Hillel lounge went about there typical business, sitting around and doing school work. Ten minutes passed, and before anyone realized what was happening, the mob that was outside the press conference on the third floor was outside the Hillel office on the fourth floor. The students outside of the Hillel were shouting louder their anti-Israel slogans and banging on the floor and walls so hard that the lights outside the Hillel were flickering. As the students in Hillel began to grow uneasy and the feeling of being safe was diminishing, York security was called in to try and help break up the crowd but as any student who has been to York knows, the campus security is severely limited on the force that they can use and they were unable to break up the crowd. And, as a result we were encouraged by Hillel staff to call the Toronto Police to help disperse the crowd. Some students who had the local non-emergency number called that one but as panic was setting in with other students some called 911 as they were truly scared for their safety."

A quick google had pages and pages more. I guess when you attended that school you didn't get out much.

You were saying?

[Topaz]

As one US president said to the voters before the election, ask yourself if YOU are BETTER off today?? So... are you better off since the Harper government took over? Is the country in better shape since Harper? How many are unemployed? 1.5 Mil. This is NOT a time to prorogue the government , even if all those Tories went out and bought tickets to the Olympics! Perhps Harper could shut down all the businesses so ALL Canadians could watchéor go to the Olympics, only fair! All wages would be paid by the Conservative Party of Canada, they are very rich!