Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[JB Globe]

Did you read the report

its says

Quote

Q. [if aware of Stephen Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament] Do you support or oppose Stephen Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament until early March?

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

As pointed out elsewhere, 30% of Canadians don't follow politics, don't read the news, and don't vote, so it's no surprise that 30% are unaware of the issue. All political polls begin with the "are you aware of the issue" question anyways. In fact I'm sure you've quoted poll numbers in the past from newspaper summaries of them and didn't realize that 30% of the people polled were unaware of that issue.

Remember, we could do the same kind of math you did with this poll and apply it to the amount of people who voted for Harper as a percent of the population: 6.6 million Canadians voted for Harper in the last election, or 22% of all Canadians, ie - less than 1 in 4.

[Alta4ever]

Remember, we could do the same kind of math you did with this poll and apply it to the amount of people who voted for Harper as a percent of the population: 6.6 million Canadians voted for Harper in the last election, or 22% of all Canadians, ie - less than 1 in 4.

IF you apply those numbers to rest of the parties, their numbers are even less. In both the ekos poll and the angus reid poll they did nothing to identify the non voters. I have taken part in polls that ask questions that gathers this data.

[ToadBrother]

It would certainly be a roll of the dice on their part. I think what's holding them back is that support for the Conservatives shot up to 45% when they last floated that trial balloon.

A quick check on the internet shows there are varying opinions on whether there is already a precedent for coalition governments in Canada. Maybe you are right this should now be tested.

Well, it's not so much the Coalition government concept, which has been tested at various times throughout the old Empire and through the Commonwealth, so there's nothing terribly constitutionally difficult about a Coalition. What would be more educational, to my mind, is how the GG would respond to a demand from a majority of MPs demanding the recess be ended and Parliament recalled. Technically, Iggy and Co. doesn't have much standing in regards to advising the GG. She asked Harper to form a government in 2008, not them. At the same time, when the majority of the House of Commons demands an end to the recess, I think you've entered a very gray area. But the point, as it was with the Short Parliament all those long long years ago, wasn't so much that what's being done is constitutional (it wasn't, then as now the Sovereign has the right to prorogue Parliament), so much as dismissing Parliament against its will is anathema to democracy and good governance.

Edited January 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, it's not so much the Coalition government concept, which has been tested at various times throughout the old Empire and through the Commonwealth, so there's nothing terribly constitutionally difficult about a Coalition. What would be more educational, to my mind, is how the GG would respond to a demand from a majority of MPs demanding the recess be ended and Parliament recalled. Technically, Iggy and Co. doesn't have much standing in regards to advising the GG. She asked Harper to form a government in 2008, not them. At the same time, when the majority of the House of Commons demands an end to the recess, I think you've entered a very gray area. But the point, as it was with the Short Parliament all those long long years ago, wasn't so much that what's being done is constitutional (it wasn't, then as now the Sovereign has the right to prorogue Parliament), so much as dismissing Parliament against its will is anathema to democracy and good governance.

Which is why the"majority" need to grow a pair and pull this off. The GG can't really stand in the way of a "majority" of members from the Hoes of Commons.

[Born Free]

......... I should've just said red tories.

Havent seen one of those for a long time. Certainly not since the Reformers took over.

[nicky10013]

Havent seen one of those for a long time. Certainly not since the Reformers took over.

I suppose so. You know it's bad when Joe Clarke joined the Liberals.

[ToadBrother]

Which is why the"majority" need to grow a pair and pull this off. The GG can't really stand in the way of a "majority" of members from the Hoes of Commons.

I think that's a somewhat unresolved question, to be honest. The two most recent Constitutional crises in our system (the King-Byng Affair and the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis) seem, to a large degree, been due to Governor Generals much more willing to take the bull by the horns and exercise the Reserve Powers than GG's in our era. The situation is not like those situations. In this situation, there has been no loss of confidence, Harper and his ministers are still in good standing, so it really comes to a gray area. If the majority of Parliament decides to return to work, the issue becomes whether they can officially do so unless Parliament is recalled, which is a reserve power of the GG's, but like all such powers, is almost always (save in very special circumstances) used on the advice of Her Majesty's Government.

The appropriate way to do this is to test confidence, but no one seems to have the balls to do it, and when they did, Harper set what I think may now represent one of the worst precedents in modern Westminster history. I'm mainly interested in the majority of MPs demanding Parliament be recalled because it would go some way to reasserting the supremacy of Parliament, even over the government of the day.

[g_bambino]

What would be more educational, to my mind, is how the GG would respond to a demand from a majority of MPs demanding the recess be ended and Parliament recalled.

I wonder how such a thing could be registered when parliament isn't technically sitting. You're suggesting a confidence motion be passed without an actual vote in the house.

[g_bambino]

The appropriate way to do this is to test confidence, but no one seems to have the balls to do it...

And it appears they won't be growing balls any time soon.

[ToadBrother]

I wonder how such a thing could be registered when parliament isn't technically sitting. You're suggesting a confidence motion be passed without an actual vote in the house.

The technical answer is "No, confidence cannot be tested unless the House sits." The issue here, as it was when Charles I dismissed the Short Parliament and made his infamous Prorogation Speech, is whether, against the will of Parliament, the Sovereign (or in our case, the Vice-regal representative) can in fact prorogue Parliament. Now, we all know that in reality, the GG only does what the Government of the day tells her to do, but still, technically, it is the Sovereign's Vice-regal representative that is in fact proroguing Parliament, and if Parliament doesn't want to be Prorogued, then you end up asking "Who is the dominant force here?" I don't think its a question that has in fact been asked since 1641, and then, the answer was clear. The Long Parliament refused, and not just refused, but stripped the Sovereign of the power to unilaterally dismiss Parliament.

Edited January 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

Which is why the"majority" need to grow a pair and pull this off. The GG can't really stand in the way of a "majority" of members from the Hoes of Commons.

Here's your answer Jerry.

Liberals 'will be working' - but not to topple Tories

Last fall, he was saying the Prime Minister's time was up.

But at a news conference Friday morning, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff rebuffed questions about his previously expressed desire to take down Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government.

“We want to get the other guys back to work, that’s the key thing,” Mr. Ignatieff replied when asked about the potential for an election.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/liberals-will-be-working---but-not-to-topple-tories/article1423804/

No election on the horizon.

What Canadians want, Mr. Ignatieff said, is for politicians to “lower the volume.”

What is he saying here? He wants his Liberals to tone it down? Talk about confused messaging.

[nicky10013]

And it appears they won't be growing balls any time soon.

I watched the press conference. He didn't committ to having an election or not having an election which is about what you would expect. The closest he came to saying anything is we want to make parliament work, which as we've seen really means relatively little.

[ToadBrother]

I watched the press conference. He didn't committ to having an election or not having an election which is about what you would expect. The closest he came to saying anything is we want to make parliament work, which as we've seen really means relatively little.

Well, I didn't actually expect Iggy to have those kinds of balls. More just me wishing that the Opposition would show some real kahoonas. If they didn't want the prorogation, then bloody well tell the person who actually does it; the GG.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

He dodged the "election" question. He said he wants parliament to work. Now how do you do that when it isn't sitting because it was prorogued? Simple, form a coalition and have the GG remove Harper as an expression of the will of the majority of citizens. Do that and Parliament goes back to work.

[nicky10013]

Well, I didn't actually expect Iggy to have those kinds of balls. More just me wishing that the Opposition would show some real kahoonas. If they didn't want the prorogation, then bloody well tell the person who actually does it; the GG.

If he showed kahoonas and said we'd be in an election in 2 months no matter what, the story isn't about the government anymore it's about the Liberals trying to force an election. The Liberals are getting a tonne of free press right now simply because the government is in hot water. If you want things to change you don't give the government a gift when they're in the most trouble. Unfortunately its called politics. YOu don't answer questions until you have to and they don't have to until they vote on the budget. There's a number of things they can do on the meantime. Keep detainees in the news. Issue budget recommendations. Release a platform.

[Argus]

Which is why the"majority" need to grow a pair and pull this off. The GG can't really stand in the way of a "majority" of members from the Hoes of Commons.

Just what do you imagine would change in your world if your fantasy coallition took over the government? More openness and honesty? More integrity? A less abrasive, abuse environment in parliament?

Because I can foresee no possibility of any of that happening in those circumstances.

[nicky10013]

Just what do you imagine would change in your world if your fantasy coallition took over the government? More openness and honesty? More integrity? A less abrasive, abuse environment in parliament?

Because I can foresee no possibility of any of that happening in those circumstances.

I think you're right but I think where you're wrong is that it would be coming from the government. Anything can be more open and have more integrity than this government. Where the problem would lie is that the conservative opposition would be so obstructionist nothing would ever get done. They're making their own parliament not work, just think of what would happen if they're in the opposition benches.

[Argus]

I suppose so. You know it's bad when Joe Clarke joined the Liberals.

Clarke was always a liberal. His party had no conservative beliefs, plans or policies, which was why it lost the support of conservatives and collapsed the moment there was an alternative - much as we're seeing in Alberta with the Wild Rose Party.

[nicky10013]

Clarke was always a liberal. His party had no conservative beliefs, plans or policies, which was why it lost the support of conservatives and collapsed the moment there was an alternative - much as we're seeing in Alberta with the Wild Rose Party.

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

[Argus]

He dodged the "election" question. He said he wants parliament to work. Now how do you do that when it isn't sitting because it was prorogued? Simple, form a coalition and have the GG remove Harper as an expression of the will of the majority of citizens. Do that and Parliament goes back to work.

With an atmosphere even more poisoned than it is now, far more hostility between the "coallition" and the "opposition", which will cooperate on nothing. Meanwhile, the coallition will be tearing itself apart within months as the NDP insists on socialist policies, the BQ insist on more money and power and independance for Quebec, and everyone in the Liberal Party who isn't on its left wing fighting tooth and nail against both.

Within a year you'd have a Conservative majority.

[nicky10013]

With an atmosphere even more poisoned than it is now, far more hostility between the "coallition" and the "opposition", which will cooperate on nothing. Meanwhile, the coallition will be tearing itself apart within months as the NDP insists on socialist policies, the BQ insist on more money and power and independance for Quebec, and everyone in the Liberal Party who isn't on its left wing fighting tooth and nail against both.

Within a year you'd have a Conservative majority.

I don't think they'd be tearing themselves apart publicly. The goal would be to get to 6 months. I think you're overlooking the fact that with Harper gone the Conservatives would be tearing themselves apart as well. Hell, they're already tearing themselves apart behind closed doors. The minute he put out that economic statement last years, the knives were out for Harper. With a split right you get a Liberal majority not a Conservative one.

[ToadBrother]

Just what do you imagine would change in your world if your fantasy coallition took over the government? More openness and honesty? More integrity? A less abrasive, abuse environment in parliament?

Because I can foresee no possibility of any of that happening in those circumstances.

You're quite right. It would probably deliver an equally divisive and as Machiavellian Parliament as the one that's already here. But it would also establish once again the very basis of our constitution stretching back 350 years, that Parliament is Supreme; not the government of the day, not the Governor General in Council, but Parliament. If the whole thing fell apart in a week I could care less at this point.

[nicky10013]

You're quite right. It would probably deliver an equally divisive and as Machiavellian Parliament as the one that's already here. But it would also establish once again the very basis of our constitution stretching back 350 years, that Parliament is Supreme; not the government of the day, not the Governor General in Council, but Parliament. If the whole thing fell apart in a week I could care less at this point.

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?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Just what do you imagine would change in your world if your fantasy coallition took over the government? More openness and honesty? More integrity? A less abrasive, abuse environment in parliament?

Because I can foresee no possibility of any of that happening in those circumstances.

I could see Harper gone.

[ToadBrother]

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?

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.

Edited January 8, 2010 by ToadBrother