Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Actually that IS what we have, unfortuneately our lying coward of a Prime Minister fooled people into believeing that would be a coup d'etat.

What?

Actually I understood that within our system, the partisan factions elect a leader for each of themselves, and the public elects representatives. The greatest number of representatives by partisan faction then is invited to form a government by the Governor General. The elected representatives themselves do not and never have elected a leader, only a speaker for the House of Commons.

[myata]

Actually that IS what we have, unfortuneately our lying coward of a Prime Minister fooled people into believeing that would be a coup d'etat.

No, a more fair assessment would be that ignorant apathetic people allowed themselves be fooled into that assumption (as well as they could be into a wide array of others). Conscious, intelligent and active population is the only practical guard for a functioning democracy. Without it, any system can be bypassed and compromised. The archaic Canadian system, that does not have any meaningful checks on the government, and gives it huge discretions as to how to conduct its affairs with the public, can be compromised so much easier.

[nicky10013]

What?

Actually I understood that within our system, the partisan factions elect a leader for each of themselves, and the public elects representatives. The greatest number of representatives by partisan faction then is invited to form a government by the Governor General. The elected representatives themselves do not and never have elected a leader, only a speaker for the House of Commons.

Doesn't change the fact that the coward branded a a perfectly legal coalition as a revolutionary coup d'etat.

[eyeball]

Obviously, I disagree; so far, your main complaint has been that the constitution is old.

Yeah, it's all wrinkled too.

Far from being a problem, I'd say that's a sign of its strength; Canada is one of the oldest continuous democracies on earth. It's certainly not perfect, but one need not replace the entire machine in order to fix a glitch or two; we shouldn't treat our constitution like an iPod or a digital camera.

So is it safe to assume you're still using a rotary phone and a plate camera?

[eyeball]

It's much more than a piece of paper (not to mention that it's not all written down). It's a document that lays out how we are governed and it gives us some very important rights as well. Changes to such a document should never be taken lightly.

I'm mostly talking about making additions. Like I said it's a good start but it's time to get with the times.

[nicky10013]

Yeah, it's all wrinkled too.

So is it safe to assume you're still using a rotary phone and a plate camera?

Changing the constitution is a great idea in theory, but a dumb idea in practice. Firstly, it can never be done without ripping the country apart. Secondly, there's almost no constitution to begin with. There's a British North America Act setting out the definition of our federalism but beyond that there's not much dictating the institutions. It's all based on precedent which in the end 99% of the time is a good thing. It allows parliament to roll with the punches, to set new precedent and to keep things modern. In the modern age that's exactly what you want. Despite thoughts to the contrary the Canadian system is probably one of the more efficient legislative bodies in the world. Checks and balances sure sound great but the US system is practically collapsing under it's own weight it's simply just that slow.

Well, all this is true depending on what Harper does with it. Like I said...99% of the time it's good.

[eyeball]

I would be all for that! Let the elected representatives to the House of Commons themselves elect a leader! That would be brilliant, and I would support that 100 percent. Unfortunately that is not what we have.

We could do this without changing the Constitution, an election or a coalition.

[eyeball]

Changing the constitution is a great idea in theory, but a dumb idea in practice. Firstly, it can never be done without ripping the country apart. Secondly, there's almost no constitution to begin with. There's a British North America Act setting out the definition of our federalism but beyond that there's not much dictating the institutions. It's all based on precedent which in the end 99% of the time is a good thing. It allows parliament to roll with the punches, to set new precedent and to keep things modern. In the modern age that's exactly what you want. Despite thoughts to the contrary the Canadian system is probably one of the more efficient legislative bodies in the world. Checks and balances sure sound great but the US system is practically collapsing under it's own weight it's simply just that slow.

Well, all this is true depending on what Harper does with it. Like I said...99% of the time it's good.

There are all sorts of reforms we could make to our system of governance without even touching the Constitution. Letting Parliamentarians elect a PM in the case of a minority governments is one, mandatory voting is another, citizens's assemblies and referenda also do not require changes to the Constitution.

[nicky10013]

There are all sorts of reforms we could make to our system of governance without even touching the Constitution. Letting Parliamentarians elect a PM in the case of a minority governments is one, mandatory voting is another, citizens's assemblies and referenda also do not require changes to the Constitution.

None of these would work. How could you legislate that the house should elect a PM in case of a minority government? There's nothing Canadians hate more than elections, or so it seems so mandatory voting is out of the question. That also eliminates referenda. Citizen's assemblies? It's been tried but not so many people show up.

[lukin]

How come no one talked about prorogue when Jean Cretien did it 4 times while he was PM?

The answer is because the MSM is dominated by Liberal apologists and will do anything to cast a negative light on the Conservatives.

[g_bambino]

No, he's a machiavellian and I don't ever recall calling him an idiot.

Implicitly, you did indeed call him an idiot, by presuming the end result of his actions would be the exact opposite of what you said he wanted in the first place. If true, that would be pretty idiotic on Harper's part.

The rest of what you say about subversions of democracy has already been exposed as over-reactive rhetoric meant purely to inflame. It's a prorogation of parliament; an often used, lawful element of our system. Whether or not its use was ethical is, of course, purely subjective. I don't sense, so far, that here was any pressing need to prorogue the legislature, and the Prime Minister has made himself look like a hypocrite (not for the first time, and not being the first politician to do so), but, having parliament on break also doesn't signal to me the end of the universe at the hands of the evil, galactic Emperor Harper. There was no impending confidence motion, no alternate head of government being put forward by parliament, and there is nothing to prevent the issue of Afghan detainees, or whatever other subject the opposition wants to get its panties in a knot over, being raised again. So, it really appears that, by process of elimination, the panicky outrage displayed by more than a few posters here can't be based on anything other than a partisan hatred of Harper or a fear that the opposition parties are going to look, once more, like inept weaklings.

[sp]

Edited January 4, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I really do favour a republic.

Maybe you do. I don't think anyone else favours your republic, though.

[g_bambino]

Doesn't change the fact that the coward branded a a perfectly legal coalition as a revolutionary coup d'etat.

Your other comments aside, what you say here is perfectly correct. In that instance, Harper's actions were worrying; he could only have been a) well aware he was lying to the populace about our parliamentary system, or completely ignorant of the workings of our parliamentary system. Either way, it wasn't good.

[disable emoticons]

Edited January 4, 2010 by g_bambino

[nicky10013]

Implicitly, you did indeed call him an idiot, by presuming the end result of his actions would be the exact opposite of what you said he wanted in the first place. If true, that would be pretty idiotic on Harper's part.

The rest of what you say about subversions of democracy has already been exposed as over-reactive rhetoric meant purely to inflame. It's a prorogation of parliament; an often used, lawful element of our system. Whether or not its use was ethical is, of course, purely subjective. I don't sense, so far, that here was any pressing need to prorogue the legislature, and the Prime Minister has made himself look like a hypocrite (not for the first time, and not being the first politician to do so), but, having parliament on break also doesn't signal to me the end of the universe at the hands of the evil, galactic Emperor Harper. There was no impending confidence motion, no alternate head of government being put forward by parliament, and there is nothing to prevent the issue of Afghan detainees, or whatever other subject the opposition wants to get its panties in a knot over, being raised again. So, it really appears that, by process of elimination, the panicky outrage can't be based on anything other than a partisan hatred of Harper or a fear that the opposition parties are going to look, once more, like inept weaklings.

[sp]

As I mentioned before, we'll see how loud the screeching gets when the Liberals do it. Again, as I mentioned before, they will do it. I'll restate this again. It isn't even about Harper anymore it's about the future of parliamentary democracy. No matter what, PMs shouldn't run away from parliament because they don't like the noise coming from the other side of the bench. Justify it now any way you want, something tells me if Ignatieff was ever elected PM and he pulled the same stunt you wouldn't have the same amount of indifference. No matter which party they like, Canadians shouldn't have their voice run out of parliament. That's not over reaction.

I also feel as though I should put my head through the wall. Again, the Liberals prorogued 4 times because it was the end of the session. There's no similarity at all between what happened then and now. Everyone here can keep telling themselves what they want. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts.

[g_bambino]

So is it safe to assume you're still using a rotary phone and a plate camera?

What is certain is that you've resorted to diversions.

[nicky10013]

Your other comments aside, what you say here is perfectly correct. In that instance, Harper's actions were worrying; he could only have been a) well aware he was lying to the populace about our parliamentary system, or completely ignorant of the workings of our parliamentary system. Either way, it wasn't good.

[disable emoticons]

I view both as not good. As I mentioned before, Canadians shouldn't lose the ability to be represented in Parliament because the PM doesn't like the way the wind was blowing on a certain issue.

The whole worrying issue about the first instance is that it sets a dangerous precedent that whenever a PM is in trouble he can just shut the doors of parliament and hope things go away. All the people who worried a year ago have been proven right.

Edited January 4, 2010 by nicky10013

[g_bambino]

It isn't even about Harper anymore it's about the future of parliamentary democracy. Again, the Liberals prorogued 4 times because it was the end of the session.

It cannot be a matter of "when the Liberals do it" because the Liberals have already "done it". You're attempting to differentiate between when a Liberal prime minister did it and now; but, the end of a session can't be used as example of differences in circumstance because a prorogation is the end of a session.

And, yes, people irrationally screeching in future will look just as silly as the ones doing it now, regardless of their favoured party.

[eyeball]

What is certain is that you've resorted to diversions.

No I haven't, I simply responded to the falsehood you made about my main complaint.

[DrGreenthumb]

What?

Actually I understood that within our system, the partisan factions elect a leader for each of themselves, and the public elects representatives. The greatest number of representatives by partisan faction then is invited to form a government by the Governor General. The elected representatives themselves do not and never have elected a leader, only a speaker for the House of Commons.

The elected MP's are supposed to choose the leader that is exactly why the coalition was totally in line with how our system is supposed to function. The leader of the party with most seats is given first chance but if he does not command the confidence of the house the GG is supposed to ask parliamentarians if anybody else DOES have that confidence.

[nicky10013]

It cannot be a matter of "when the Liberals do it" because the Liberals have already "done it". You're attempting to differentiate between when a Liberal prime minister did it and now; but, the end of a session can't be used as example of differences in circumstance because a prorogation is the end of a session.

And, yes, people irrationally screeching in future will look just as silly as the ones doing it now, regardless of their favoured party.

Yes it can because the Liberals previously actually completed their sessions and passed all their priorities through the house on the way to becoming law. There was a reason to prorogue and no partisan gamesmanship behind it. There is no reason now. We're also forgetting that usually it's a 1 or 2 day prorogal right before the beginning of the session, it's 2 months this time. He's killing 32 of his own pieces of legislation because he doesn't like the questions he's being asked in question period. So please, keep on telling me it's the same thing.

As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, acting like the prorogals are one in the same is just simply not true and highly irresponsible. It's just as disturbing and misleading as Harper calling a coalition a coup d'etat.

Edited January 4, 2010 by nicky10013

[DrGreenthumb]

Yes it can because the Liberals previously actually completed their sessions and passed all their priorities through the house on the way to becoming law. There was a reason to prorogue and no partisan gamesmanship behind it. There is no reason now. We're also forgetting that usually it's a 1 or 2 day prorogal right before the beginning of the session, it's 2 months this time. He's killing 32 of his own pieces of legislation because he doesn't like the questions he's being asked in question period. So please, keep on telling me it's the same thing.

As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, acting like the prorogals are one in the same is just simply not true and highly irresponsible. It's just as disturbing and misleading as Harper calling a coalition a coup d'etat.

Does it surprise you that dishonest ideologues support the actions of a dishonest ideologue PM? Harper is a lying coward who ran away from parliament and subverted democracy not once but twice in about a year's time.

[g_bambino]

No I haven't, I simply responded to the falsehood you made about my main complaint.

By ignoring my advice against tossing out an entire machine to fix a problem or two with it, you were proving that you never suggested that the constitution be scrapped because it's too old? Oookaaay... Well, just to remind you:

Our country was designed for us by an old rotten Empire according to its own peculiar needs and interests. Its time for a new confederation and constitution...

Seems pretty obvious.

[sp]

Edited January 4, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

I found this story that shows how PM Chretien has used prorogation for political convenience: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/11/12/liberals031112.html. Now PM Harper has used it (twice) to avoid political inconvenience. The posts seem to be moving toward government using any of their discretions for any reason of their convenience, whatsoever. Most certainly this is also the direction toward less efficient, less transparent, less functional democracy (all the while a democracy it still is).

As said, the problem is not as much with any particular PM, but with the opaque, easily manipulatable system that's been designed to give strong upper hand to the government in power. It must be updated (and upgraded) for the modern age, or federal government out of all scrutiny and/or parliamentary control could become a regular order of political business in this country.

[g_bambino]

The elected MP's are supposed to choose the leader that is exactly why the coalition was totally in line with how our system is supposed to function. The leader of the party with most seats is given first chance but if he does not command the confidence of the house the GG is supposed to ask parliamentarians if anybody else DOES have that confidence.

Or call an election, yes.

[c/e]

Edited January 4, 2010 by g_bambino

[Keepitsimple]

Doesn't change the fact that the coward branded a a perfectly legal coalition as a revolutionary coup d'etat.

Perhaps technically legal - although again - history has never seen it done with a party like the BQ playing a supporting role.....but you should thank the man upstairs that Harper did what he did. Can you imagine heading into the worst recession in decades with Stephane Dion as PM and having to negotiate every step of the way with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe?