Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Quebec does not need to be appeased at all. They need to be treated with respect and invited to help the commonwealth of all Canadians to their mutual benefit.

[myata]

The problem here is that Harper, or at least his constitutional advisers were smarter than the Coalition, and managed, effectively, to get to the GG first. In the Australian Constitutional crisis, the PM wasn't so fast on his feet, and lost the day.

I think your memory or understanding may not serve you well. It's a well known fact that Harper asked for prorogation before the confidence vote happened, i.e. to avoid facing the elected House. By any notion, there was no reason to request GG's decision before democratic will of the House has been expressed. Harper's moved was solely to avoid having democratic will of the House being expressed. By any notion, this has nothing to do with democracy, everything with government control and dominance of political agenda.

In any case, you're saying that some sort of political tricks and ploys should take precedence over the will of the elected House. If that's your understanding of how democracy should work, it's very different from mine. In my view of democracy, almost by definition, government that has lost confidence of the elected House has no legitimate mandate to govern, period and no exception. Governments that hang on to the power by ploy, trick (as well as other means) are well known in other parts of the world. We aren't there just yet, but with a start like that, who knows where it'll take us?

If I had been this erstwhile Coalition, I would not in fact have advertised it at all. I would have been waiting outside Rideau Hall for the signal that the House had voted no confidence and then submitted that I had the support of the majority of the House, so that when the PM inevitably came to announce the loss of confidence, the GG would have had the constitutional instrument to affect my coalition's succession to the government.ver

No, that would be playing into the rules of obviously outdated, undemocratic system designed in the age of political Old Testament with the sole purpose to allow the government to hang on to the power till impossible and some more. The system that has to be modernised before we become a laughing stock of the democratic world.

In effect, the failure of the Coalition had nothing to do with our constitution, and everything to do with the fact that Harper is, ultimately, the smarter fox. If the Coalition leaders had been cleverer, and had played this like a poker game rather than a pissing contest, it's quite possible they would have succeeded. Don't blame the system, blame the players in the game of Replace a Government. They should have been as Machiavellian as Harper has shown himself to be. But let's face it, Layton and Dion have amply demonstrated their failures at tactical thinking.

I see that you prefer Machiavellian politics, while I'm for an open and transparent democracy. The party (or group, accord, coalition of parties) that has the confidence of the elected House has mandate to govern. The one that does not, gets out of the way. This probably explains the difference in our views on the event.

[Oleg Bach]

They should prorogue parliment for five years. All of them should simply go home. I bet that in five years things will be much better...after all - what do they do their other than take nice lunches and posture?

[capricorn]

Hopefully this issue will stay in the press for the next two months and Canada can finally throw this Harper bum to the curb.

Well don't expect Ignatieff's help any time soon in returning Canada to Liberal Nirvana. This message was made clear by the Count himself.

Shutting down Parliament has raised speculation about a spring election. Certainly, there is no need for an early election. Three in less than six years is enough for the next while. In case anyone missed it, I got that message loud and clear from Canadians last fall.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/745951--text-of-michael-ignatieff-opinion-piece

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou're saying that some sort of political tricks and ploys should take precedence over the will of the elected House... playing into the rules of obviously outdated, undemocratic system designed in the age of political Old Testament with the sole purpose to allow the government to hang on to the power till impossible and some more. The system that has to be modernised before we become a laughing stock of the democratic world.

Only if you define grumbled threats as an expression of will. Otherwise, the smears against the system are nothing more than what they really are: selfish, juvenile pouting: "Stupid system doesn't give me what I want; old stuff is stupid." Your careless and irrational demands for change even echo the teenage malcontent acting out through vandalism. Be serious; lest your timid fretting over ridicule - from a group that uses essentially the same governmental system as us, no less - actually sets you up as the laughing stock.

[g_bambino]

I can think of exactly two in the last hundred years; the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional Crisis, where Reserve Powers have been used without or in defiance of the will of a Prime Minister and Cabinet.

I believe the Queen once had to select a UK prime minister by her own volition, following Anthony Eden's resignation. But, again, that was because of unusual circumstances and a lack of mechanism in the British Conservative Party for selecting a leader.

[sp]

Edited January 5, 2010 by g_bambino

[Topaz]

The spring election will only be if Harper poll numbers are higher than they are now, but mostly likely by Fall. I guess it depends how hard Harper want to push for an election, knowing Canadians don't want one and he keeps saying that! It also depends if Layton keeps helping the Tories out, I like to see how Harper can manage without the NDP support for a change and the other parties. As far as the Tories proroguing, Jay Hill was on CBC news talking and saying that this isn't the first time its been done and going on and on about which PM did it. I wish the host has asked him WHY they were doing it? The Parliament business isn't not done, there are Bills to pass and Harper only thinking about are those documents that the Committee's want on torture. Again, I can not understand why any Canadian could support a party that is clearly hiding and covering up serious actions on their part. They have succeeded in the past to coverup things and they will keep doing it as long as they think they can get away with it. I question the moral values of the people who support such a party. Sad.

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe it would be good if the Queen before she passed away did some Queen work...it certainly was not her work when we ended up with a GG that dives in head first in to the carcus of a dead seal and eats it's heart - just because she's black and cute is not enough reason for her to have the position..but liberals that say they are conservative just love outrageous actions like gay marriage and eathing the guts out of dead animals.

[nicky10013]

Only if you define grumbled threats as an expression of will. Otherwise, the smears against the system are nothing more than what they really are: selfish, juvenile pouting: "Stupid system doesn't give me what I want; old stuff is stupid." Your careless and irrational demands for change even echo the teenage malcontent acting out through vandalism. Be serious; lest your timid fretting over ridicule - from a group that uses essentially the same governmental system as us, no less - actually sets you up as the laughing stock.

If a coalition is just a "grumbled expression of will" then what is a clear expression of will. The opposition has been trying to make the government accountable. It's Harper who has literally stated Parliament wasn't doing what he wanted therefore that's why he prorogued (funny, considering it was his own party not making parliament work). Could the opposition look whiny? Absolutely. However, if people feel the government isn't the biggest child in this they need to recheck their bias. They took the ball and went home because parliament wouldn't play nice and you know, not ask tough questions.

[Oleg Bach]

No government should have the right to cancel itself out then go home to run the nation privately behind closed doors.

[g_bambino]

If a coalition is just a "grumbled expression of will" then what is a clear expression of will.

The formation of a coalition isn't an expression of will to topple the government. A vote of non-confidence is. There were only threats that one would take place, no guarantees, and Harper acted to make sure he had his ass covered. As TB said, what we saw was merely the result of politicking, even if it was disappointingly childish on all sides (minus the Governor General, of course).

[+]

Edited January 5, 2010 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

No government should have the right to cancel itself out then go home to run the nation privately behind closed doors.

I believe I just hit the nail on the head with that blow. If parliment is prorouged that does not mean that the function of those in charge suddenly becomes null and void. I am sure that the actions of the controllers will intensify and proceed with even more vigor - but it will in effect become a very shadowy government cutting a lot of tacit deals while they are out of the lime light for that short but intense period... this is rather nasty that the gov wants to go underground - I can see it being legit if the Queen herself is involved but I doubt it. It smells like rebellion against the crown to me...Or maybe the Crown using an iron fist to gain control of the old colony - What other nation in all the world has this "prorouge" system? What government has the power to make itself invisable at will?

[nicky10013]

The formation of a coalition isn't an expression of will to topple the government. A vote of non-confidence is. There were only threats that one would take place, no guarantees, and Harper acted to make sure he had his ass covered. As TB said, what we saw was merely the result of politicking, even if it was disappointingly childish.

It never got there because Harper suspended the house before the vote could occur. At the point he prorogued it was more than clear the government would fall. However, this is where constitutional scholars seemed to disagree. Some thought that the GG should give the PM whatever he wanted. Others said the GG should prove Harper had the confidence of the house before he prorogued. That point of view make sense. Setting that precedent bars from complete and total misuse of prorogation. She approved and now were in a democratic abyss. Finally, lest we forget that every single non-conservative MP signed a letter begging the GG to allow a confidence vote.

Edited January 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[myata]

Only if you define grumbled threats as an expression of will.

"Grumbled", heh? So our elected representatives, MPs, cannot be trusted with making responsible decisions to govern the country? And who can, then? The Monarch? Her landly incarnation, the holy PM? Some vision of democracy, why does it reminds me of ways medieval, when the souvereign decided the rights from wrongs and lowly peasants got busy executing the supreme will.

Otherwise, the smears against the system are nothing more than what they really are: selfish, juvenile pouting: "Stupid system doesn't give me what I want; old stuff is stupid."

As defined by who? The same government that hanged on to the power via undemocratic means, against the clear will of the elected House?

Your careless and irrational demands for change even echo the teenage malcontent acting out through vandalism. Be serious; lest your timid fretting over ridicule - from a group that uses essentially the same governmental system as us, no less - actually sets you up as the laughing stock.

Right, for the lack of better argument, everything goes.

[g_bambino]

It never got there because Harper suspended the house before the vote could occur.

Yes, that's essentially what I said. But, a high probability still isn't a guarantee; parliament must speak officially before doubt can be dispelled.

The prorogation has set a bad precedent, but it was the least worst option available to the Governor General, and her number one instruction from the Queen is to ensure the stability and continuity of the system, everything else coming second. By following her prime minister's advice, she:

1) adhered to constitutional precedent, keeping the Prime Minister responsible for decisions,

2) avoided an election mere months after the last and during Christmas,

3) only extended a Christmas break that was to happen anyway,

4) didn't risk a hastily formed, shakey coalition government, and

5) ensured the Prime Minister would still have his time before the opposition, should the latter care to hold him accountable when parliament reconveined.

The opposition still had every opportunity to bring Harper down at the beginning of 2009, leaving the Governor General to make another decision; that they didn't is nobody's fault but their own. Which reminds me of what John Baglow said in the National Post:

How is it that Harper can get away with defying and padlocking Parliament whenever he likes? Because he can... Because the two smaller opposition parties can't do very much on their own. Because the largest "opposition" party in the House of Commons is lumbered with a hapless caricature of a leader and a "war room" apparently populated by stoned adolescents.

John Baglow: Everyone shut up so Ignatieff can have a debate

[g_bambino]

"Grumbled", heh? So our elected representatives, MPs, cannot be trusted with making responsible decisions to govern the country?

Please see my above response to Nicky.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh well, let the kids go home and take it easy..standing up in Parliment yelling at each other is very tiring - they all need a rest.

[nicky10013]

Yes, that's essentially what I said. But, a high probability still isn't a guarantee; parliament must speak officially before doubt can be dispelled.

The prorogation has set a bad precedent, but it was the least worst option available to the Governor General, and her number one instruction from the Queen is to ensure the stability and continuity of the system, everything else coming second. By following her prime minister's advice, she:

1) adhered to constitutional precedent, keeping the Prime Minister responsible for decisions,

2) avoided an election mere months after the last and during Christmas,

3) only extended a Christmas break that was to happen anyway,

4) didn't risk a hastily formed, shakey coalition government, and

5) ensured the Prime Minister would still have his time before the opposition, should the latter care to hold him accountable when parliament reconveined.

The opposition still had every opportunity to bring Harper down at the beginning of 2009, leaving the Governor General to make another decision; that they didn't is nobody's fault but their own. Which reminds me of what John Baglow said in the National Post:

The least worst option was to allow the coalition to govern as is defined by the parliamentary system. The least worst option was to not set a horribly dangerous precedent. The least worst option was to not allow a Prime Minster avoid a confidence vote in the house which would surely have led to the defeat of his government. Most constitutional scholars agree that the Governor General has to listen to the advice of the PM when he has confidence from the house. He simply didn't have it. That's just the end of the story.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The least worst option was to allow the coalition to govern as is defined by the parliamentary system. The least worst option was to not set a horribly dangerous precedent. The least worst option was to not allow a Prime Minster avoid a confidence vote in the house which would surely have led to the defeat of his government. Most constitutional scholars agree that the Governor General has to listen to the advice of the PM when he has confidence from the house. He simply didn't have it. That's just the end of the story.

The story is far from over. That was merely the prologue!

What we are reading now is only the preface of the new novel being written as we speak by Harper and his Conservative government. We are getting a glimpse of things to come, but only just that because Harper has been very close with his poker hand. This latest move isn't as much bluff as it appears. Harper has a hole card, or he would not ante up let alone offer to call. What that card is may be a mystery to some, but I think that it is safe to say that at least Harper thinks its worth a try. Harper is going to bet on the economy. He rode out that bad stuff, and that leaves him in the drivers seat headed into the good times. Thats where this is going. The winter games, the inquiries, and a whole plethora of other variables are removed from the equation as long as Parliament does not sit. He gets to rule in the absence of opposition, the pesky media and any time frames or other diversions from implementing his grand strategy to gain a majority.

The opposition is left with nowhere to go, according to Harpers plan. Harper knows that the public isn't keen on an election, but he will call the election if the opposition doesn't. He will provoke the opposition into calling the election in tiny little steps, one at a time. He will sit tight and watch to see what happens and only be seen in the news to correct the errors made by both the media and opposing politicians. He will attempt to look presidential, calm and poised. He will swat the flies as they try to swarm around him. That will be the end of the preface portion of the novel, the real story will begin when Harper thinks the last fly has been killed and his distractions are over.

[Oleg Bach]

You seem to know Harper very well.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You seem to know Harper very well.

I don't know him at all, but I understand him. I don't like him at all, but I respect him. I don't agree with much of what he says or does, but I do know why he does these things. Harper is no fool. He is doing what he needs to do to attain the power and control that he desires. Sadly, it is working and many can't seem to understand the how and why that it does work. Harper is using human nature against the humans.

[Oleg Bach]

A few years ago I lobbied via talk radio to rid Ottawa of liberals...I must have spewed my doctrine off over a hundred times on the radio..I mentioned this to a former associate who is from a prime old conservative family - He is an investment banker of sorts...all he said regarding the liberals getting the boot was "It's nice to get them out of there". Harper IS big buisness and he represents their concerns. I really don't know if that is a good or bad thing. One thing you must realize is that their is a group of very very talented and shifty lawyers working this thing. They are highly skilled and focused - in my mind they view Canada as a very large corporation...Much the way Dick Cheney views his nation as his own company. In all common sense and realty we are a corporation and the lawyers are simply doing the books - long as they are not cooking the books I am fine with it.

[myata]

Yes, that's essentially what I said. But, a high probability still isn't a guarantee; parliament must speak officially before doubt can be dispelled.

The prorogation has set a bad precedent, but it was the least worst option available to the Governor General, and her number one instruction from the Queen is to ensure the stability and continuity of the system, everything else coming second. By following her prime minister's advice, she:

1) adhered to constitutional precedent, keeping the Prime Minister responsible for decisions,

Still not answering the main question, should PM have the ability to interfere with, and ultimately, prevent the elected House from expressing its democratic will? If yes, how "democratic" such an arrangement (that essentially says that government trumps the majority will of elected representatives) would be (and is)?

2) avoided an election mere months after the last and during Christmas,

Obviously false, we already discussed that in a transparent democracy election in this situation would not be necessary, because there was a democratic coalition of parties with support of majority of elected representatives ready to replace the government that lost the confidence of the House.

3) only extended a Christmas break that was to happen anyway,

Another word for "allowed Harper to interfere with the democratic decision of majority of the House"?

4) didn't risk a hastily formed, shakey coalition government, and

Yet again (hope you'll notice this time around), as defined by who? Unless the decision of majority of the elected House should be subservient to the government, in that view of democracy.

5) ensured the Prime Minister would still have his time before the opposition, should the latter care to hold him accountable when parliament reconveined.

The opposition still had every opportunity to bring Harper down at the beginning of 2009, leaving the Governor General to make another decision; that they didn't is nobody's fault but their own.

As said, the system is greatly compromised by undemocratic interference of government with the will of the elected House. PM can hold the House, and the entire country hostage by the threat of the election, that would be entirely unwarranted in that situation. Government lost the confidence of the House, government has to go. The alternative, governing with no confidence, is a parody of real democracy.

PS: a Facebook group against prorogation. These archaic instruments of interfering with democracy should go where they belong, in the past.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=260348091419

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Still not answering the main question, should PM have the ability to interfere with, and ultimately, prevent the elected House from expressing its democratic will? If yes, how "democratic" such an arrangement (that essentially says that government trumps the majority will of elected representatives) would be (and is)?

Obviously false, we already discussed that in a transparent democracy election in this situation would not be necessary, because there was a democratic coalition of parties with support of majority of elected representatives ready to replace the government that lost the confidence of the House.

Another word for "allowed Harper to interfere with the democratic decision of majority of the House"?

Yet again (hope you'll notice this time around), as defined by who? Unless the decision of majority of the elected House should be subservient to the government, in that view of democracy.

As said, the system is greatly compromised by undemocratic interference of government with the will of the elected House. PM can hold the House, and the entire country hostage by the threat of the election, that would be entirely unwarranted in that situation. Government lost the confidence of the House, government has to go. The alternative, governing with no confidence, is a parody of real democracy.

PS: a Facebook group against prorogation. These archaic instruments of interfering with democracy should go where they belong, in the past.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=260348091419

All true. However all allowed under the current system.

[Oleg Bach]

All true. However all allowed under the current system.

Internationally speaking all power comes from the private sphere. You may as well take a mature approach and embrace the system. Politics is and has always been indulgent theatre. WE all the people are incorporated into this company called Canada INC. So far we are doing well and are in good shape. My purpose is to educate and bring forth some fine young minds that can contribute to the national family and it's vested interests. I guess I finally had to submit to the reality of it all. Maybe it's genetic..all I know of my original family who had it's history washed away by revolution and war is that they "operated in the pirvate sphere" - If we are wise and mature we will continue with our success..in this nation even the poor can live a good life if they show personal control over their own lives.

It's all about routine and order. This what appears to be an anomaly is quite normal. AND our system endures where others have failed because we are truely a united entity.