Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Alta4ever]

You folks know how this works. The question is designed to provide the desired answer. What the poll means is that of the people who actually give a damn enough to be aware of whats going, that a large majority of those folks did not approve.

Thats not what the left have been saying they have been misquoting to make it sound like its what the majority of canadans think not those that kinda have been paying attention or don't care to at all.

Somebody earlier stated that those who don't care probably don't vote but this is incorrect as well because 65% have not payed attention or are vaguely aware and vote turnout hasn't dropped to 35% yet federally.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[nicky10013]

You folks know how this works. The question is designed to provide the desired answer. What the poll means is that of the people who actually give a damn enough to be aware of whats going, that a large majority of those folks did not approve.

No, it's desired to get a response from likely voters. The percentage didn't break 100% towards hating on Harper so it's not like it's unscientific. The next poll that comes out favouring the Conservatives, something tells me that it won't be under such scrutiny from you, Alta4ever.

[Alta4ever]

No, it's desired to get a response from likely voters. The percentage didn't break 100% towards hating on Harper so it's not like it's unscientific. The next poll that comes out favouring the Conservatives, something tells me that it won't be under such scrutiny from you, Alta4ever.

oh yes it will, I have learned not to take such things at face value.

I want to know the reality of the situation so that means looking beyond the provided commentary.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[nicky10013]

oh yes it will, I have learned not to take such things at face value.

I want to know the reality of the situation so that means looking beyond the provided commentary.

Well, considering you believe the tripe coming out of the government about proroguing being routine, then yes, yes you do take things at face value.

[Alta4ever]

Well, considering you believe the tripe coming out of the government about proroguing being routine, then yes, yes you do take things at face value.

So you have a problem with the information on the number of times proroguement has been used by all the governments of this country coming from the Library of Parliament, since that is where this data came from?

Edited January 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

So again, how many times has it been used with that many government bills on the order paper...especially considering those awaiting Royal Assent? Harper didn't do anything wrong, but I'm starting to wonder if there isn't something going on here....I'm just not sure anymore.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

So you have a problem with the information on the number of times proroguement has been used by all the governments of this country coming from the Library of Parliament, since that is where this data came from?

No, you took the occaisions of prorogual from the Liberal Party. That's fine. The problem is you're misrepresenting what the institution is actually there for. You're acting as though every government has thrown their agenda out the window and gone running from parliament every time a prorogual has happened. The other scenario is it's a normal occurance. It can't be both and considering you've used both it's clear to see for everyone who isn't a staunch conservative partisan that you're deliberately attempting to misrepresent the issue. So please, just drop it.

Edited January 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

No, you took the occaisions of prorogual from the Liberal Party. That's fine. The problem is you're misrepresenting what the institution is actually there for. You're acting as though every government has thrown their agenda out the window and gone running from parliament every time a prorogual has happened. The other scenario is it's a normal occurance. It can't be both and considering you've used both it's clear to see for everyone who isn't a staunch conservative partisan that you're deliberately attempting to misrepresent the issue. So please, just drop it.

You are a staunch liberal partisan.

It is a normal occurrence, who says the government has thrown their agenda out the window, in fact with this they will now be able to rebuild the committees in the senate to better reflect the make up the senate so that they are better able to move forward the government agenda.

[nicky10013]

You are a staunch liberal partisan.

It is a normal occurrence, who says the government has thrown their agenda out the window, in fact with this they will now be able to rebuild the committees in the senate to better reflect the make up the senate so that they are better able to move forward the government agenda.

Well, when you kill 36 pieces of your own legislation, arguing whether or not you've destroyed your own agenda isn't really on the table to be debated. I'm happy you tried, but it just didn't work out the way you planned.

As for my partisanship, I admit I'm a tad left of centre but I would vote PC if I could. So please, try and keep pinning labels to me. As I said before, it seems that of the two of us I'm the only one who has been able to admit their current party of choice has made mistakes, so keep on running with that.

[Alta4ever]

Well, when you kill 36 pieces of your own legislation, arguing whether or not you've destroyed your own agenda isn't really on the table to be debated. I'm happy you tried, but it just didn't work out the way you planned.

As for my partisanship, I admit I'm a tad left of centre but I would vote PC if I could. So please, try and keep pinning labels to me. As I said before, it seems that of the two of us I'm the only one who has been able to admit their current party of choice has made mistakes, so keep on running with that.

Funny the red meat conservative private members bills aren't being killed and the government bills can be reintroduced without liberal meddling in the senate.

[nicky10013]

Funny the red meat conservative private members bills aren't being killed and the government bills can be reintroduced without liberal meddling in the senate.

The senate issue isn't anywhere near as large as Conservatives like to admit. If it was such a horrible deterrent to getting things done then why was the government able to pass 30 pieces of legislation into law? It doesn't make sense so please, why don't you explain it to me.

[Alta4ever]

The senate issue isn't anywhere near as large as Conservatives like to admit. If it was such a horrible deterrent to getting things done then why was the government able to pass 30 pieces of legislation into law? It doesn't make sense so please, why don't you explain it to me.

Thirty peices of 60 some. Three major peices of legislation where being changed by the senate through senate committee work, the most contentious the truth in sentencing legislation which had passed the HOC on a unanimous vote.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

Thirty peices of 60 some. Three major pieces of legislation where being changed by the senate through senate committee work

uhh....that's their job. Their supposed to change bills if they find fault with them. The Senate is just as much a part of the parliament as the Commons, elected or not.

[Alta4ever]

uhh....that's their job. Their supposed to change bills if they find fault with them. The Senate is just as much a part of the parliament as the Commons, elected or not.

How much liberal government was legislation was changed by the liberal dominated senate?

[Smallc]

Probably a lot of it. The Senate changes almost every bill in some small way.

[g_bambino]

As for my partisanship, I admit I'm a tad left of centre but I would vote PC if I could. So please, try and keep pinning labels to me.

You'll get that a lot here; some people seem to make themselves more comfortable by turning the universe into nothing more complex than bipolar absolutes. Expressing a pattern of opinion that doesn't mimick one dogma or the other really drives them nuts.

[+]

Edited January 8, 2010 by g_bambino

[Alta4ever]

Probably a lot of it. The Senate changes almost every bill in some small way.

36th parliament first session an most bills that received royal assent are not amended, but passed as approved by the hoc. Most as I went through the bills most were passed through the senate within 2-3 months.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Housebills/billsgovernment.aspx?Parl=36&Ses=1&Language=E&Mode=1

Funny the senate did seem to play games then.

[Smallc]

Ok, lets try to follow your logic for a minute. The Liberals in the Commons voted with the government (all of them). Obviously, they agreed with the government legislation. The Senate, through their study of the legislation (which is far more in depth than that of the Commons) came to the conclusion that there were problems with the legislation....so they changed it...against the wishes of the Liberals in the Commons...but here's where you drop off. It's because they were doing their job.

As I said, the Senate almost always changes some language in bills. When the Senate and the Commons are ideologically divided, those changes will probably be bigger. When they aren't they might be smaller. It doesn't mean that the Senate is playing games. That's part of the way our Parliament works. The Commons and Senate don't exist in vacuums. They're checks on each others power, and the fact that many so called Conservatives don't see the importance of that is disturbing in many ways.

The Senate represents a continuity that the Commons doesn't. The Commons can completely change with one election. The Senate doesn't. It changes slowly maintaining the continuity.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

36th parliament first session an most bills that received royal assent are not amended, but passed as approved by the hoc. Most as I went through the bills most were passed through the senate within 2-3 months.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Housebills/billsgovernment.aspx?Parl=36&Ses=1&Language=E&Mode=1

Funny the senate did seem to play games then.

So which bills have been meddled with? I know for sure they were holding up the crime bill, but then again it was nothing more than a political wedge meant to make the opposition look soft on crime at the expense of efficiency in corrections.

I'm not trying to be a dick like you were last night, I'm just curious.

Edited January 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

Ok, lets try to follow your logic for a minute. The Liberals in the Commons voted with the government (all of them). Obviously, they agreed with the government legislation. The Senate, through their study of the legislation (which is far more in depth than that of the Commons) came to the conclusion that there were problems with the legislation....so they changed it...against the wishes of the Liberals in the Commons...but here's where you drop off. It's because they were doing their job.

As I said, the Senate almost always changes some language in bills. When the Senate and the Commons are ideologically divided, those changes will probably be bigger. When they aren't they might be smaller. It doesn't mean that the Senate is playing games. That's part of the way our Parliament works. The Commons and Senate don't exist in vacuums. They're checks on each other's power, and the fact that many so called Conservatives don't see the importance of that is disturbing in many ways.

The Senate represents a continuity that the Commons doesn't. The Commons an completely change with one election. The Senate doesn't. It changes slowly maintaining the continuity.

more bills remained unchanged in that session of parliament then changed,

[g_bambino]

more bills remained unchanged in that session of parliament then changed,

And?

[Smallc]

And I said that they probably would and I also said why that would probably be so, but you ignored that. Also, it's important to remember that a ) changes by committees are not always accepted by the entire Senate, and b ) often the changes to bills are very subtle and legalistic in nature.

[jbg]

Well you said they needed to spend time in their constituencies or are you unaware of just how much time is spent by MPs in Ottawa, I have yet to meet anyone who can be in two places at once.

The Ottawa-area MP's perhaps.

[jbg]

So that means the 41% that strongly opposed were only of the 67% that new of the issue. so whats 41% of 67% 0.41*67=27.47% are opposed

I think that almost 100% of Canadians will wake up with nightmares as a result of prorogation.

[nicky10013]

I think that almost 100% of Canadians will wake up with nightmares as a result of prorogation.

Meh, not 100% of Canadians. There will always be the deluded few.